The Wright Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941674865
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5108419230
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,022,161
Expenses
$17,291,383
Assets
$37,329,667
Liabilities
$2,961,252

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER DYBWAD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PETER DYBWAD (PRESIDENT): $630,742 total reported compensation
  • MILENA ESHERICK (PROG. DIRECTOR (THRU 8/24)): $507,233 total reported compensation
  • GILBERT NEWMAN (VP FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $327,942 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Graduate school of psychology.

What it reported doing in 2024

Established in 1968, the wright institute is a fully-accredited graduate school of psychology and offers both master's and doctoral level degrees. The institute was founded with the mission of educating clinicians to society - clinicians whose practice will meet the needs of the diverse communities of the san francisco bay area. Committed to integrating knowledge of social issues with clinical psychology, students learn to analyze and evaluate research, theory, and practice; and make appropriate use of the evolving body of psychological knowledge. The institute currently enrolls 500 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.5%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th 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: 4.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.5% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $14.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $631K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $610K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • 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 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.