Pope County Pheasants Restoration Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411440363
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Glenwood, MN, USA
Phone
3204916304
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,896
Expenses
$65,518
Assets
$80,912

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAY JOHNSON (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • BOB TIREVOLD (Secretary)
  • RANDI IMDIEKE (Treasurer)
  • RAY JOHNSON (Vice President)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the growth of Pope County's (Minnesota) Ringnecked pheasant population through conservation practices such as establishing and supporting habitat, contributing to habitat programs of other organizations, releasing pheasants onto public lands and the education of area residents and youth. We are committed to our local area, spending all of our members' contributions within the Pope County, Minnesota area for the restoration of the pheasant population. For the past 39 years PCPR has aggressively sought ways to restore the once plentiful pheasants.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food and habitat are provided for pheasants and other wildlife to prepare and encourage good conservation habits as they relate to both land and wildlife in the Pope County, Minnesota area. Newsletters are also sent out to members updating them on conservation practices and results. A youth event and scholarships are also provided to encourage conservation, stewardship, ethics and an understanding and enjoyment of the outdoors and our natural resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $66K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.