Ground Water Protection

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731210455
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4055164972
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,837,353
Expenses
$20,389,811
Assets
$11,614,810
Liabilities
$1,799,411

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICK TEW (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAN YATES (EXECUTIVE DI): $197,776 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL JARVIS (STAFF): $146,445 total reported compensation
  • PAUL JOHN (STAFF): $118,445 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Recognizing ground water as a critical component of the ecosystem. We provide an important forum for stakeholder commumication and research in order to improve governments' role in the protection and conservation of groundwater.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conferences and training: gwpc hosts member conference, training courses, webinars, and conference calls focued on techincal transfer amougst the states. Topics reange from groundwater and source water protection, underground injection control regulations, s state oil and gas regulatory management, and state invironmental and resouce governanace.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $18.3M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.