Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383304154
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cadillac, MI, USA
Phone
8107440540
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$323,924
Expenses
$113,924
Assets
$983,619
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
  • CLYDE SMITH (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RICHARD HINTERMAN (TREASURER)
  • MATT JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
  • CLYDE SMITH (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation is committed to sustainable water resources through the science of aquatic ecosystem management in collaboration with industry, academia, government and other stakeholders. AERF is proud to partner with **Wallace State Community College** on this landmark pilot program. Our mission is to bridge the gap between general agribusiness education and the highly specialized needs of the aquatic restoration industry. Currently launched as a pilot in Alabama, Wallace State is working closely with AERF to fine-tune a curriculum that produces Day-1-ready technicians. This program serves as the blueprint for AERF’s national initiative to develop similar partnerships with colleges across the United States. _“This pilot program bridges the gap between general agribusiness and specialized aquatic restoration. We are building the national blueprint for an...

What it reported doing in 2025

Aquatic ecosystem research and training programs

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.4%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.63; rating input score 88; 88th 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: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 31.4% of revenue deployed · 69.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.