Scott Lesueur Waterfowlers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843149767
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Montgomery, MN, USA
Phone
9526936033
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fishing, Hunting

Reported finances

Revenue
$180,106
Expenses
$237,990
Assets
$100,445
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrew Harms (President)
  • Collin Shoenecker (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Andrew Harms (President)
  • Collin Shoenecker (Vice President)
  • Jason Hotzler (Secretary)

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

Overview

Mission

To improve and preserve waterfowl habitat and hunting resources through environmental conservation youth programs and community awareness.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Sandborn and Dora Lakes Projects focus on environmental conservation and community engagement in the region. Through these initiatives we aim to preserve the natural habitats surrounding Sandborn and Dora Lakes ensuring the sustainability of local flora and fauna. Our comprehensive approach includes habitat restoration water quality monitoring and educational programs to raise awareness about the importance of environmental stewardship. By actively involving the community in our projects we foster a sense of ownership and responsibility towards these vital ecosystems. Through our collaborative efforts we strive to create a lasting impact that benefits both the environment and the people who call this area home. This year we placed over 130 wood duck houses on Sanborn and 50 on Dora.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.9%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -32.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 37.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.9% of revenue deployed · 0.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 191 of 191 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 35 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.