Waterjet Technology Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411595413
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Saint Louis, MO, USA
- Phone
- 3142411445
- Rating
- 39
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $802,271
- Expenses
- $777,233
- Assets
- $1,542,354
- Liabilities
- $267,383
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JIMMY PECK (President)
- DAVID BECKUM (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- JIMMY PECK (President)
- KERRY SIGGINS (Chairman)
- DREW WALTENBAUGH (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Waterjet Technology Association (WJTA) was created in 1983 at the 2nd U.S. Water Jet Conference, held on the campus of the University of Missouri-Rolla (now called the Missouri University of Science and Technology), by members of the waterjet industry acting in concert with university and government officials. The major impetus to the creation of the Association was to provide a means of service and communication within the industry, as epitomized by the biennial waterjet conferences.Formal objectives of the Association have been adopted as follows:1) To provide a means of cooperation between government, industry, university, and research institutions on all matters of fluid jets and industrial vacuuming, including applications in jet cutting, industrial cleaning, and other uses in the manufacturing, mining, construction, and process industries.2) To foster domestic and international trade of products and services relating to waterjet cutting, waterjet cleaning, and industrial vacu
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization publishes journals, directories & newsletters to educate its members about equipmnet uses, applications, safety, job performance & technical problems. The organization serves approximately 600 members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
REVIEW - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.98; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $293K reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.