Water Environment Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541511635
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
5713842100
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,631,710
Expenses
$8,380,128
Assets
$10,916,501
Liabilities
$2,101,848

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GLENN REINHARDT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GLENN REINHARDT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $365,132 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL WOLTERING (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH): $269,173 total reported compensation
  • JANE KNECHT (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $184,956 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To encourage, conduct, and support research programs that develop an inter-disciplinary approach to water quality problems, with emphasis on environmental protection and economic recovery.

What it reported doing in 2013

Research -- werf research falls into one of six main topical areas, called program areas. These areas were ranked as high priority by werf subscribers and focus on critical water quality issues.conveyance systems: centralized and decentralized wastewater and stormwater systems design, evaluation, rehabilitation, and optimization; cso/sso control; hydraulics and system capacity.infrastructure management: facility and asset management at plants and collection systems; security strategies and tactics; monitors, sensors, and early warning systems; energy management.solids treatment, residuals & reuse: nutrient treatment and removal technologies, pathogens and micropollutants; odors, aerosols, and air pollutants impact and control; biosolids land application and management.stormwater: develops products that help subscribers effectively manage stormwater quality and quantity to mitigate adverse impacts, protect and restore ecosystems, and provide amenity. Wastewater treatment & reuse: centralized and decentralized treatment for nutrients, pathogens, and micropollutants; intermittent flow issues; odors, aerosols, and air pollutants impact and control; water reusewatershed management & water quality: endpoints, measurement and assessment tools for receiving water health; human and ecological risks from contaminants of concern; sustainable watershed management.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% 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 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 33rd 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $365K · 22 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $180K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.