Washington State Academy of Sciences

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680668369
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2065397409
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$219,990
Expenses
$193,997
Assets
$196,962
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Donna Riordan (Executive Director)
  • Allison Campbell (President)
  • Douglas Call (President Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Riordan (Executive Director): $4,939 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

WSAS provides expert scientific and engineering assessments to inform public policy making and works to increase the impact of research in Washington State.

What it reported doing in 2024

WSAS's program in 2024-25 included: Hosting an annual symposium on "AI for Washington State" that brought together scientists, industry professionals, and policymakers to discuss the challenges and opportunities related to research applying AI to critical state industries including climate, agriculture and health. We also did a state landscape assessment of the state's S&T needs and priorities, explored opportunities to start a science policy fellows' program, and hosted a reception for WSAS members. Finally, we provided technical support to the Dept of Commerce related to energy technologies and addiction research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $53.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 11.8%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $170K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.