Center for Watershed Protection Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541644387
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fulton, MD, USA
Phone
4104618323
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,779,842
Expenses
$3,738,402
Assets
$2,728,711
Liabilities
$607,361

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HYE YEONG KWON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO)
  • RHEA HARRIS (PRESIDENT)
  • JUANITA GALBREATH (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HYE YEONG KWON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO): $265,181 total reported compensation
  • BETH UHLER (PENNSYLVANIA DIRECTOR): $134,966 total reported compensation
  • AMANDA POLLACK (EMPLOYEE): $125,809 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To protect, restore and enhance our streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and bays.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stormwater and watershed services encompasses technical assistance to states, local governments, watershed organizations and others to conduct field assessments, develop implementation plans, conduct retrofit inventories, or other related work. Program; york county bank assessment for non-point source consequences of sediment; and development of an offsite mitigation guidance document for regulated Massachusetts municipal separate storm sewer systems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.9% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.