Institute for Applied Ecology
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931283716
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Corvallis, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5417533099
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,367,319
- Expenses
- $6,662,277
- Assets
- $4,469,913
- Liabilities
- $1,286,376
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEITH NORRIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS OF 5/20/24)
- THOMAS KAYE (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- KEN BIERLY (PRESIDENT)
- BRANDY HUMPHREYS (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JENNIFER BUTLER (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $120,252 total reported compensation
- THOMAS KAYE (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $118,759 total reported compensation
- KEITH NORRIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS OF 5/20/24): $53,256 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 institute for applied ecology conserves native species and habitats through restorations, research, and education
What it reported doing in 2024
Ecological education: the decline in human connection with nature is found especially in underserved communities within our region, including incarcerated people who number over 15,000 in Oregon and 2.3 million nationwide. This nature deficit leads to lower human health, higher incidents of violence, and reduced sense of well-being. Furthermore, there is often a disconnect between environmental professionals and the diverse communities that live in the region where restorations take place. This isolation excludes valuable insights from projects and reduces ownership of habitat restorations by diverse communities. Incarcerated people and communities of diversity are particularly deprived of opportunities to interact with ecosystems as well as in environmental fields. (continued on schedule o)one project of our ecological education program, sagebrush in prisons, deeply engages prison inmates in habitat conservation by giving them vocational training in native plant nursery management and a lecture series in conservation science. These incarcerated adults are healing their environment, their communities, and themselves.program accomplishment numbers: over 300,000 sagebrush and other native plants grown by adults in custody in 11 prisons in five states to restore greater sage-grouse habitat impacted by fire or other native habitats. Adults in custody contributed over 33,000 hours towards conservation of sagebrush and other native habitats.provided place-based summer education and forest immersion programs for middle and high school students in north-central New Mexico.over 1000 adults in custody engaged in ecological education with 117 lessons.405 youth in juvenile detention attended 56 lessons provided in 2 facilities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.8%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $171.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st 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: 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: 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: -4.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.8% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 14 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $105K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.