Washington Restaurant Association Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911686716
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tumwater, WA, USA
Phone
3609567279
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$510,233
Expenses
$441,441
Assets
$275,344
Liabilities
$20,410

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY ANTON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY ANTON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $363,894 total reported compensation
  • SONJA HALVERSON (EDUCATION FOUNDATION DIRECTOR): $145,515 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 wra education foundation is leading solutions, career development and training provider for Washington state's hospitality community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Prostart is a nationwide two-year hospitality program that develops culinary techniques and management skills in high school students. The industry-driven curriculum links classroom learning with hands-on experience to develop the best and brightest talent in tomorrow's restaurant and food service leaders. With support of community-minded industry members, Washington's prostart program reaches more than 1,500 high school students per year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.4%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.4% of revenue deployed · 48.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $216K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $364K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.