Rogue River Watershed Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 113823736
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Central Point, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5414236158
- Rating
- 90
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,906,980
- Expenses
- $2,836,345
- Assets
- $512,237
- Liabilities
- $82,762
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN BARR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- BRIAN BARR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $110,537 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Enhance resilience in rogue river watersheds through ecological restoration and engagement with community partners.
What it reported doing in 2025
Stream restoration: the council identifies conditions in and along streams that limit habitat quality for fish and wildlife, and water quality. The council engages with private and public landowners and land managers to discuss these limiting factors, develop approaches to reduce or eliminate the impact, and implement ecological restoration projects to address them. Restoration actions including large wood installment and side-channel reconnection help restore natural stream processes.additionally, aquatic animal passage and movement are improved through prioritized barrier removal and subsequent irrigation system conversion when necessary. Continued on schedule o. Streamside restoration, including riparian rehabilitation, uses integrated pest management practices to help recover native plant communities, primarily focused on excluding livestock and suppressing noxious weeds. Additional efforts to encourage native plant survival are included in future stewardship. When necessary, native plant species are planted to contribute shade to the stream and increase slope stability to help prevent erosion. More often than not, however, we allow native species to recruit naturally at our streamside restoration projects. These actions restore natural processes that improve water quality and sustain high-quality aquatic and terrestrial habitats that build a resilient ecosystem and robust fish, plant, and animal populations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.9%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $96.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.9% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 12 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.