Western Pennsylvania Water Pollution Control Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251342650
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Greensburg, PA, USA
Phone
7248507417
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$93,169
Expenses
$79,313
Assets
$85,817
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE SHERRIEB (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT HERRING (PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT HINSCH (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JASON CUMMINGS (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GARY STETAR (PWEA DIRECTOR)
  • ANNA PRAVLOCHAK (TREASURER)
  • MIKE SHERRIEB (PAST PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary goal of the western Pennsylvania water pollution control association, inc. Is the advancement of knowledge in areas of design, construction, operation, maintenance, and management of sewage and industrial waste treatment works. Through meetings, tours, seminars, and other training activities, as well as the personal exchange of knowledge and experience among the members, it is possible to achieve our purpose. To further unify these efforts, the western section is affiliated with the Pennsylvania water environment association and the water environment federation.

What it reported doing in 2025

All expenses were incurred to further the exempt purpose as described above.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% 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 revenue has grown recently. 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: 82
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -34.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.