Watson Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461001797
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
7203941889
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,082,445
Expenses
$4,070,738
Assets
$3,814,580
Liabilities
$61,730

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC GLUSTROM (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Andrew Lippi (COO): $195,533 total reported compensation
  • ERIC GLUSTROM (President): $186,950 total reported compensation
  • ISABEL DEJESUS (Key Employee): $120,021 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Watson Institute accelerates the impact of entrepreneurs and leaders

What it reported doing in 2024

Watson institute runs fellowship programs in partnership with corporations and foundations for next generation innovators, leaders, and entrepreneurs working to solve social, economic, and environmental challenges. The fellowship programs include training, mentorship, seed funding, and an expanded network.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.