Washington Innocence Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833498962
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066369479
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,743,931
Expenses
$1,412,918
Assets
$743,142
Liabilities
$93,088

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARA ZAROWSKY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ASHLEY OCONNOR MCCREADY (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • LA ROND BAKER (VICE PRESIDENT UNTIL 082024)

Highest reported compensation

  • LARA ZAROWSKY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $141,900 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Washington Innocence Project (WashIP) works to free innocent Washington State prisoners, improve our criminal legal system through education and advocacy, and support the wrongly convicted in Washington State as they rebuild their lives in freedom.

What it reported doing in 2024

LITIGATION: Successfully completed the second of a three-year federal grant in partnership with the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab to evaluate and get cases into DNA testing. One particularly complicated case is now in the process of testing and numerous other petitions for DNA testing are being litigated. The Litigation Team has deepened its knowledge on all cases of wrongful conviction by engaging in and leading trainings in national and state-level forums.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.3%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 19%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 37.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.3% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.