WateReuse Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680309391
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7035480880
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,687,284
Expenses
$4,889,861
Assets
$6,825,572
Liabilities
$2,178,917

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Melissa L Meeker (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Melissa L Meeker (Executive Director): $297,384 total reported compensation
  • Michelle A Tuggle (Strategic Development Director): $137,545 total reported compensation
  • Julie N Minton (Director of Research Programs): $102,986 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

WateReuse Research Foundation (Foundation) is an educational, nonprofit public benefit corporation whose mission is to conduct and promote applied research on the reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination of water.

What it reported doing in 2015

Research Programs: The Foundation sponsors research and conducts this research through contracts to universities, local water agencies and consulting firms. The Foundation currently has 45 active projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $297K · 26 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.