Water Environment Association of Texas Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741969689
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126930060
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,564,543
Expenses
$1,246,278
Assets
$1,990,120
Liabilities
$123,064

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTIN O'NEILL (PRESIDENT)
  • DYLAN CHRISTENSON (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ALISSA LOCKETT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATT JALBERT (PAST PRESIDENT & JUNIOR WEF DELEGATE)
  • JULIE NAHRGANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE NAHRGANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $203,130 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We empower water professionals to educate, enhance, and advocate for clean water in Texas.

What it reported doing in 2024

Webinars, seminars and other conferences - held throughout the year to educate participants regarding water environment issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.1%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 94%; rating input score 94; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: 20.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.1% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $710K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.