Richland Creek Environmental Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621591030
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Pulaski, TN, USA
Phone
9313632675
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,570
Expenses
$15,387
Assets
$78,901
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Gillespie (President)
  • Brian Flowers (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jason Gillespie (President)
  • Brian Flowers (Vice President)
  • Sam Smith (Secretary Treasurer)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The RCEA was organized to resolve water quality issues associated with poor agricultural animal waste management practices in the Richland Creek Watershed. Farmers had no way of recycling accumulated wastes on their farm, which ended up as a containment in Richland Creek. The RCEA was organized through farm members with guidance from the Giles County SWCD, USDA-NRCS, UT-EXT and TDA. Usage fees are established targeting replacement costs and maintenance of equipment. Target goals are directed to protecting water quality, educating managers of farming operations on the proper use of recycling animal waste, and providing for an emergency serviced option in instances of environmental hazards or spills associated with farming operations.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, eleven farmers received training on the proper use of equipment while leasing the equipment. We rented equipment to several farmers this year along with several repeat customers who utilized our services helping to avoid any hazards or spills. We created flyers and sent out notices to capture farmers and landowners not aware of our services. We extended our coverage area to include other watersheds helping to keep more of Tennessee safer from hazardous spills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.13; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.