The Association of State Wetland Managers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030303870
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, ME, USA
Phone
2078923399
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,170,384
Expenses
$1,045,542
Assets
$610,823
Liabilities
$286,180

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marla Stelk (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marla Stelk (Executive Director): $107,272 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the protection and restoration of wetlands and related aquatic resources, to apply sound science to wetland management, and to provide training, education, and capacity building for our members and the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research - 50%ASWM conducted research into many areas of environmental policy through six primary projects: 1) Enhancing State and Tribal Roles in Wetland Protection through Regulatory Program Capacity Building, 2) Strengthening Opportunities for State Assumption of the Section 404 Dredge and Fill Program, 3) Urban Wetlands: Supporting and Sustaining a Healthy and Safe Urban Environment, 4) Wetland Training for State and Tribal Wetland Program Professionals, 5) Beaver and Wetland Restoration, and 6) Raising the Bar on Wetland Mapping Through Educational Webinars, Outreach and Advancement of Functional Assessment Methodologies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $889K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.