Foundation for Western Washington University and Alumni
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 916073519
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Bellingham, WA, USA
- Phone
- 3606504283
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,066,436
- Expenses
- $25,813,028
- Assets
- $187,907,508
- Liabilities
- $18,983,156
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
33 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KIM HILL (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- MARK BROVAK (VICE PRESIDENT & CFO)
Highest reported compensation
- KIM HILL (PRESIDENT & CEO): $356,897 total reported compensation
- KERRY GODES (ASSOC. VP DEVELOPMENT): $244,808 total reported compensation
- MARK BROVAK (VICE PRESIDENT & CFO): $239,082 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 foundation for western Washington university and alumni is a non-profit, public 501(c)(3) organization that advances the mission of the university: "by inspiring our community to give, we secure and steward private resources to advance scholarship, research and creativity."the foundation was established in 1966 as a vehicle to receive and encourage private giving to wwu. The foundation is led by a group of dedicated board members who grow awareness of the importance of private support to public institutions. These alumni, parent and community leaders bring their experiences in business, education, science, and non-profits and share the common mission of engaging new friends for western while also stewarding the more than $175 million in assets under the foundation's management. Gifts fund student scholarships, as well as program and faculty member support.
What it reported doing in 2024
Higher education: grant gifts of in-kind property received for western Washington university to include computer hardware and software, technical equipment, art collections and gallery, library additions and other.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -113.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.28; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $22.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $357K · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.