Midwest Energy Research Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611618708
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4744448208
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Engineering and Technology

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,456,728
Expenses
$1,405,582
Assets
$2,074,471
Liabilities
$2,031,563

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN EBERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAN EBERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $147,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Driving innovation for the energy, power, and controls sector by synchronizing market insights, technology innovation and talent & start-up development into a new innovation engine for economic development and growth.

What it reported doing in 2019

The midwest energy research consortium (m-werc), founded in 2009, represents one of america's largest clusters of energy, power and control companies, educational and research institutions, and other key industry stakeholders. Located in the greater Wisconsin/midwest region, m-werc acts as a catalyst for the growth of these companies and industries, through technology innovation, advanced research, market development, information sharing, workforce development and strategic collaboration. M-werc connects and synchronizes the region's expansive industry, collaborative and academic assets in a highly synergistic manner. Through its industry and technology road mapping, advanced research and development and public policy efforts, m-werc expects to help the consortium to achieve national leadership in technology, resulting in growth of sales and employment. M-werc consists of over 50 nationally and internationally recognized industrial members who represent over 50% of the region's 100,000-person workforce engaged in energy, power and control. These businesses include industry giants such as johnson controls, schnieder electric, briggs and stratton, american transmission company, and eaton corp. Our academic membership features four of the largest universities in the region, university of Wisconsin-madison, university of Wisconsin-milwaukee, marquette university, and the milwaukee school of engineering. The region's largest technical colleges are also active in m-werc. Major regional utilities are also m-werc members including allient energy, xcel energy, and wec energy group. The industry represented by m-werc generates over $38 billion in sales annually. M-werc's university and college members conduct nearly $1.25 billion in transformative research annually.in 2020 m-werc expanded its talent development program activities, adding a training program for electrical assemblers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for 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 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: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.98; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $147K · 24 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $128K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.