Highway Loss Data Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520964200
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7032471500
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,193,755
Expenses
$4,820,034
Assets
$9,465,700
Liabilities
$1,959,938

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID HARKEY (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW MOORE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID HARKEY (PRESIDENT): $1,130,183 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW MOORE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $400,807 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH NOLAN (CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER): $358,726 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 institute collects and analyzes insurance claims data and publishes statistical findings about the human and economic losses associated with different makes and models of cars, light trucks, vans and utility vehicles. The purpose of the reports is to provide information that will help reduce the losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes and thefts.

What it reported doing in 2024

The institute collects and analyzes insurance claims data and publishes statistical findings about the human and economic losses associated with different makes and models of cars, light trucks, vans and utility vehicles. The purpose of the reports is to provide information that will help reduce the losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes and thefts. The institute also analyzes the effects of various safety and crash avoidance features, such as electronic stability control (esc), forward collision warning and adaptive headlights. Summaries of the research results are widely distributed to the public, insurers, the media, public health and safety officials, motor vehicle manufacturers, and others in print and on the institute's internet website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 35 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.