Association of Water Board Directors - Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741956079
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
2813507090
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,361,987
Expenses
$3,005,480
Assets
$5,445,955
Liabilities
$1,729,258

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • James Ellis (Executive Director)
  • Larry Goldberg (1st Vice President)
  • Ike Akinwande (2nd Vice President)
  • Ellen Hughes (Immedaite Past President)
  • Kara Richardson (Executive Vice President)
  • Wendy Duncan (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • James Ellis (Executive Director): $206,103 total reported compensation
  • Taylor L Cavnar (Deputy Director): $155,904 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Association is dedicated to the betterment of Texas water district operation and management through education, unification, and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Association program consists of the following activities: Member Services: These include maintenance of membership database, communications with members, and addressing members inquiries, concerns and needs. Conferences and Seminars: The Association holds two major conferences and seminars annually. Committee Activities and Trustee Workshops: These are advocacy activities and workshops to foster the Associations interests and mission. Water Smart Campaigns: These campaigns are desgined to promote public awareness on water conservation practices in members districts. Emerging Leaders Initiative: The initiative is designed to develop current and future leaders of member districts and industry member organizations through diverse educational trainings and mentorships that foster strategic industry advocacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 76% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.5%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.5% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.