Ecological Insights

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462111011
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Hazelton, ND, USA
Phone
7014251433
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$357,847
Expenses
$156,147
Assets
$433,979
Liabilities
$3,218

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHELLEY LENZ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • REBECCA PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DI): $25,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We believe in a healthier, happier world where grazers help us save critical grassland habitat, store soil carbon and support ranching communities in the northern great plains. Our mission is to lead efforts that how science can be applied to understand regenerative grazing concepts to benefit multiple stakeholders and communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

A.worked with turtle mountain agriculture department on developing research into industrial hemp as part of a community demonstration project. Led meeting on soil health and soil testing and agricultural production. B.set up a rangeland carbon experiment on a working ranch in mckenzie, nd for the purpose of quantifying how grazing management alters the carbon cycle. Organized 4 meetings and 2 field tours for producers, conservationists, and policy makers highlighting carbon as a commodity and the science necessary to better navigate carbon markets. Collected and presented data to the public indicating how rangelands serve as carbon sinks. C.collaborated with the university of Minnesota on a watershed restoration project and ecosystem services model in pembina, nd sponsored by the usda nrcs. Set up model parameters, sampled soils, and evaluated watershed land use/land cover maps.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.7%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.78; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.7% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $137K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.