Ecology Project International
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 912163952
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Missoula, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4067218784
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,920,074
- Expenses
- $6,216,607
- Assets
- $3,043,840
- Liabilities
- $1,993,787
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MIGUEL FUENTES DURAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MIGUEL FUENTES DURAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $69,430 total reported compensation
- HALEY HANSON (INTERIM CO-ED (THRU 04/24)): $41,570 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ecology project international's mission is to inspire youth with nature and empower them with science, fostering tomorrow's leaders. We envision a diverse movement building communities that cherish and restore the ecosystems that sustain them.
What it reported doing in 2024
Greater yellowstone ecosystem, USA - epi conducts field-based local and visiting student conservation education courses within the greater yellowstone ecosystem; operated in conjunction with state entities, federal agencies, and private/non-profit program partners. Additionally, epi runs an alumni internship program in the bitterroot valley in Montana in partnership with private research and conservation ranch.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 68% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 15 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.