Ecological Society of America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370913411
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028338773
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,667,079
Expenses
$6,227,099
Assets
$15,576,593
Liabilities
$3,112,714

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE HAMPTON (PRESIDENT)
  • PETER GROFFMAN (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • SHAHID NAEEM (PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • JEANNINE CAVENDER-BARES (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE)
  • CATHERINE O'RIORDAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE O'RIORDAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $278,028 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD WALLACE (DIRECTOR PUBLISHING): $185,887 total reported compensation
  • ADRIENNE SPONBERG (DIRECTOR OF SOCIETY PROGRAMS): $177,092 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 ecological society of america (esa) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of scientists founded in 1915 to: promote ecological science by improving communication among ecologists; raise the public's level of awareness of the importance of ecological science; increase the resources available for the conduct of ecological science; ensure the appropriate use of ecological science in environmental decision making by enhancing communication between the ecological community and policy-makers to promote ecological science by improving communication among ecologists; and to raise the public's awareness of the importance of ecological science.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sa's office of science programs, including education and diversity programs works to expand participation in ecology , and to improve the quality of education at all levels. Esa offers a variety of programs and services including seeds, the ecoed digital library of teaching resources, the four-dimensional ecology education initiative, and the esa excellence for ecology scholarships.

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

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.5; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $278K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $262K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.