Union Station Redevelopment Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521318977
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2022220271
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Government and Public Administration
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $15,741,533
- Expenses
- $14,614,626
- Assets
- $161,443,082
- Liabilities
- $21,440,895
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DOUGLAS CARR (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- DOUGLAS CARR (PRESIDENT/CEO): $452,056 total reported compensation
- JEAN LANDRY (SVP HEAD OF CONSTRUCTION): $375,607 total reported compensation
- JASON SPENCER (VP OF REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND DEV): $244,088 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Founded in 1983, union station redevelopment corporation (usrc) is a nonprofit organization charged with three main objectives: to preserve and restore union station's historic and architectural significance, maintain the station's long-term function as a multimodal transportation center, and enhance the retail and amenities within the station.
What it reported doing in 2024
Management of the redeveloped union station facility under the provisions of public law 97-125, related to maintenance and preservation of the station complex, located in Washington, dc. On july 22, 2004, usrc was reclassified as a charitable organization exemptunder irc section 501(c)(3).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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: 46
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.5%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.05; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.5% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $452K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.