Washington Technology Industry Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911427013
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Issaquah, WA, USA
Phone
2064483033
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,454,684
Expenses
$5,278,646
Assets
$809,207
Liabilities
$2,292,582

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL SCHUTZLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • APRIL HOUSE (PRESIDENT HR BENEFITS INC)

Highest reported compensation

  • APRIL HOUSE (PRESIDENT HR BENEFITS INC): $522,403 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL SCHUTZLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $460,270 total reported compensation
  • KELLY K FUKAI (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $247,617 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To foster a robust, equity-centered technology sector that empowers thriving communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the Washington technology industry association (wtia) achieved a record-breaking year, significantly expanding its reach and impact across Washington state. Wtia provided crucial resources for startups in 19 counties, extending support far beyond king county. Wtia successfully spun out apprenti, a long-standing partner in registered apprenticeship for the technology sector. Wtia partnered with three international markets (japan, korea, and canada) to promote Washington as a global startup hub. Additional 2024 accomplishments: assisted 250+ startups with tailored coaching, valuable connections, and exclusive member resources. Facilitated 225+ conversations between startups and investors, driving crucial funding opportunities. Accelerated 72 startups through our intensive founder cohort program. Supported over 550 entrepreneurs through a wide array of events and resources.

Operating model

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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.83; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $522K · 30 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $295K reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.