Leonard Wood Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200694498
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Leonard Wood, MO, USA
Phone
5733298502
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$979,187
Expenses
$959,411
Assets
$248,318
Liabilities
$39,160

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE EHRHARDT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DORSEY NEWCOMB (EXECUTIVE DI): $152,500 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 primary objective of leonard wood institute (lwi) is to create or retain technology-related businesses, save or create new jobs, generate new products or processes, increase research funding and to faciliate the transfer of technology research and development to the marketplace.

What it reported doing in 2024

The activities of leonard wood institute (lwi) are creation of an environment of support and assistance to enable research, technology transfer and business development intitiatives that ahve an inherent synergy with fort leonard wood, whiteman air force base or other department of defense installations. Lwi utilizes the capabilities of Missouri businesses to perform technology related research and provide services related to current and future department of defense programs. The primary objective of lwi is to creat or retain technology-related businesses, save or creat new jobs, generate new products or processes, increase research funding, and to facilitate the transfer of technology form research and development to the marketplace.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.3% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $864K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.