The Downstream Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260310939
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berryville, VA, USA
Phone
5409558441
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,567
Expenses
$183,843
Assets
$113,456
Liabilities
$3,909

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEORGE L OHRSTROM II (PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER)
  • WILLIAM R HOWARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM R HOWARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $64,350 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the downstream project is to help protect watersheds by promoting awareness, alliance, and action through creative technology and communication. The downstream project's vision is a chesapeake bay community of passionate people connected to their local watersheds. Downstream is a nonprofit team of professional graphic artists, web developers, video producers, copy writers, and database experts. We protect watersheds by promoting awareness, alliance, and action. We do this by supporting partners--helping them strengthen their identities, share their stories, build digital platforms for activism, and manage their donors and events more efficiently. As a nonprofit, downstream can share project costs with partners from our own public funds. Contributions to downstream enable us to help people and organizations do more to protect water. The downstream project is an approved national fish and wildlife foundation (nfwf) technical service provider.

What it reported doing in 2024

1) website development & digital infrastructure for conservation partnersdownstream provided website development, hosting, and technical support for 45 conservation and watershed organizations, enabling partners to share environmental information, engage communities, and support stewardship activities. During the year, five new partner websites were launched, including support for newly forming watershed alliances and regional conservation coalitions. Downstream also developed online resource libraries, data visualization tools for public water quality reporting, and three new pfas outreach tools designed to support community education, particularly in underserved areas. Collectively, partner websites supported by downstream received millions of page views, significantly expanding public access to watershed and environmental information.primary purpose: public education, capacity-building for conservation organizations, environmental awareness

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.9%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.6%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.9% of revenue deployed · 47.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $87K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.