Center for Ecodynamic Restoration

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383761632
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Washougal, WA, USA
Phone
5093652543
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$136,599
Expenses
$134,056
Assets
$319,847
Liabilities
$24,200

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sandy Haigh (President)
  • Dan Larivee (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Robin Dobson (Treasurer)
  • Sandy Haigh (President)
  • Dan Larivee (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Restoration of and education about natural ecological systems.

What it reported doing in 2025

The two restoration projects on U.S. Forest Service System Lands in the Columbia River Gorge continued with activities related to monitoring and further restoration work. Students from local community college and local Stevenson schools continue to help these endeavors. At the Sams Walker site $269 were spent from the NFF grant with an additional $3661 from CEDR as match. The work at St Cloud recreation site funded from a Rose Foundation grant was started in early 2025 and is still in progress. An additional $10,000 was received for this project from the Rose Foundation. A total of 16026 was spent in 2025 at this site. A total of $19,956 was spent.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 49.8%; rating input score 50

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.39; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.9% of revenue deployed · 49.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 49/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.