Washington Campus Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521140942
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2022344446
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,479,520
- Expenses
- $2,655,181
- Assets
- $1,539,659
- Liabilities
- $333,698
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL LORD (PRESIDENT CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL LORD (PRESIDENT CEO): $398,464 total reported compensation
- RIKKI AMOS (VP OF PROGRAMS): $218,040 total reported compensation
- JOE FRANCO (VP OF PROGRAMS): $202,120 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Washington campus is to educate leaders about the Washington policy-making process so that they can engage ethically and effectively in informing policy makers and promoting sound decisions that will advance a healthy society and a robust us and global economy. The Washington campus was founded on and continues to operate on the principle that understanding how government works is indispensable knowledge for all business leaders.
What it reported doing in 2024
Other university programs - the Washington campus works with universities to design programs that provide executive mba and other students with a broad introduction to the Washington policy-making process in addition to institution-based courses. The Washington campus also offers open-enrollment courses to students who wish to benefit from a Washington policy immersion experience the objective is to translate learning into an understanding of the process between government and business and foster a desire to participate in that process.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 83
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $398K · 23 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.