Uca Users Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912113014
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Olympia, WA, USA
Phone
5099537471
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Engineering and Technology

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$626,614
Expenses
$537,443
Assets
$689,694
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN WILLCOCKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • HERB FALK (VICE PRESIDENT OF TESTING)

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN WILLCOCKSON (PRESIDENT): $105,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The uca international users group brings together utility users and supplier companies committed to promoting the integration and interoperability of electric, gas, and water utility systems through the use of international standards-based technologies

What it reported doing in 2025

General program - general programs are a combination of membership recruitment, progressing our mission, and spreading educational information about the development and adoption of iec's electric utility standards, 61850, 61970, 61968, 62351 and openfmb. Through membership drives, we strengthen the community of experts and provide in-person meetings and virtual platforms for collaboration. Our mission is met by funding other organizations and their events, and attending an annual tradeshow in the united states meant for electric utility engineers of all kinds. At times, to meet our mission we contract external people for help with building our websites, supporting our data, emails and asset security, and develop special works that improve member experiences and boost collaboration between members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $303K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $191K reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.