The Watershed Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 210649717
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Pennington, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6097373735
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,736,143
- Expenses
- $5,170,409
- Assets
- $33,960,882
- Liabilities
- $203,591
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES WALTMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES WALTMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $143,478 total reported compensation
- SOPHIE GLOVIER (CHIEF OF STRATEGY AND PROGRAM): $108,160 total reported compensation
- PANKHOORI GUPTA (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS): $35,916 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Keeping water clean, safe and healthy is the heart of our mission. We work to protect and restore our water and natural environment in central New Jersey through conservation, advocacy, science and education. It addresses key issues affecting water quality and land use, educates area residents about the ecology of the natural environment and preserves open space by maintaining a 950-acre nature reserve and organic farm.
What it reported doing in 2024
A) science - science is at the heart of the watershed institute's environmental leadership. Across the region, we collect key data on the health of our streams and on other environmental factors. We distribute the information to citizens and officials in central New Jersey, and work with them to address pollution of our water supplies and waterways. Our geographic information system combines scientific data with mapping systems to help local governments and citizens understand the environmental issues facing our communities and help plan for a better future. B) advocacy - for seven decades, the watershed institute has led the fight to preserve our region's water and land. We engage local and state officials, urging them to strengthen environmental protections, improve planning and zoning, and make better informed decisions about our future. We work cooperatively with local towns through our project for municipal excellence, and speak out against development proposals that would harm the local environment and our quality of life.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- 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 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: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.57; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 28 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.