The Society for Ecological Restoration Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391647554
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022999518
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,454,453
Expenses
$2,914,154
Assets
$2,451,366
Liabilities
$649,796

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bethanie Walder (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Bethanie Walder (Executive Director): $117,383 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

SER advances the science, practice and policy of ecological restoration to sustain biodiversity, improve resilience in a changing climate, and re-establish an ecologically healthy relationship between nature and culture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Organizational Development-(Membership, Chapters, Sections, Open Doors) With more than 5,000 members in more than 120 countries, SERs global network represents the worlds foremost source of scientific and practical expertise on the repair of degraded ecosystems. SER members include scientists, engineers, planners, program managers, policy makers, landscape architects, artists, economists, volunteers, community advocates, and others. SER members work in all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and represent governmental and nongovernmental organizations, private industry, consultancies, indigenous communities, students and more. Through this collective expertise, SER works to advance the field of ecological restoration by facilitating knowledge development and sharing among practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers. SER helps members and non- members alike share knowledge through trainings and workshops, conferences, publications, on-the-ground demonstration projects, virtual and in-person networking events, an online restoration resource center, and the worlds only Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioner (CERP) program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $368.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.9%; rating input score 90; 26th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.1% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 10 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 26 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $203K reported
  • Consistency: 46 of 48 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.