Paw Paw Lake Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364035293
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Watervliet, MI, USA
Phone
2694635169
Rating
26
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$813,466
Expenses
$718,335
Assets
$268,960
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL BOND (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GERALD BEESON (FUNDRAISING LEAD)
  • MICHAEL BOND (PRESIDENT)
  • JOANNA FORD (MARKETING)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Water quality testing, waterfowl and undesired fish and weed control

What it reported doing in 2024

Purchase of property for preservation of lake

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $673K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 10 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.