Walkable & Livable Communities Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271467185
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2016–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Port Townsend, WA, USA
- Phone
- 3603853421
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $56,749
- Expenses
- $154,750
- Assets
- $35,968
- Liabilities
- $1,953
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Lisa Portelli (President)
- Kelly Morphy (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Lisa Portelli (President)
- Kelly Morphy (Vice President)
- Robert Ping (Sec/Exec Dir)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To inspire, teach, connect and support communities in their efforts to improve health and well-being through better built environments.
What it reported doing in 2016
Education Programs: During 2016, the WALC Institute provided education and inspiration for the benefit of limitless communities throughout North America. Institute team members presented at general-attendance conferences, college classes, and national webinars. Institute staff also developed educational tools, guidance documents, illustrative graphics and other resources that were distributed for free to anyone wishing to receive them. The Institute also operates a "community help desk," which assisted people by responding to their email or phone inquiries to provide resources, recommendations and best practices. The Institute also shared educational information periodically with its Facebook followers and its email newsletter subscribers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 45.9%; rating input score 46
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -172.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -26.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -22.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 45.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $71K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.