Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272317887
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Olympia, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2535755805
- Rating
- 56
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $229,379
- Expenses
- $155,690
- Assets
- $93,714
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- David Monthie (Board President)
- Keith Dublanica (Board Vice President)
People named in this filing
- David Monthie (Board President)
- Katrina Keleher (Board Treasurer)
- Ray Willard (Board 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team or DERT advocates for the removal of Olympia's 5 th Avenue Dam and the full restoration of the Deschutes Estuary. We actively educate our community on the benefits of estuary restoration and advocate for funding and necessary studies. We envision a restored urban estuary and functioning ecosystem in the headwaters of Puget Sound.
What it reported doing in 2024
Program Services-We educated the public about estuaries with 56 volunteers who provided over 550 hours of volunteer service in 8 kayak patrols, and 4 community forums. We performed micro plastic analysis and provided a pollution hotline.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
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: 24
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 21.7%; rating input score 22
- Program expense ratio: 32%; rating input score 32
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 71.2% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 98.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 21.7% of revenue deployed · 32% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $50K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 22/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.