Westport River Watershed Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042604424
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Westport, MA, USA
Phone
5086363016
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,086,141
Expenses
$726,752
Assets
$6,061,876
Liabilities
$89,846

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RMICHAEL SULLIVAN (PRESIDENT)
  • BILL SHERDEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CINDY WILSON (VICE PRESIDENT - DEVELOPMENT)
  • DEBORAH WEAVER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBORAH WEAVER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $102,553 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A) to promote and preserve the environmental integrity of the westport river watershed and its coastal environs, b) to inform the general public about the interrelationship of our waters, soils, plants, animals and people, c) to promote research and produce informative publications, and d) to consult and work with town, state and federal government and other interested organizations, helping them and the public make enlightened decisions concerning preservation of the westport river watershed ecosystem.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education and outreach: school-based, home-based and summer education programs, nature walks and town-wide and targeted publications are designed to inform watershed residents of issues, actions, proposals and opportunities that affect our local watershed's wildlife, beauty, heritage and provide knowledge about and promote awareness and knowledge of and stewardship of estuary resources.our children's summer programs were fully subscribed, and we provided 10 full scholarships, through the gay gillespie summer scholarship fund, to children in grades 1-4. The river center was regularly open to the public, with multiple free family programs. We held a number of meet the author series, outdoor experiences in the watershed, and educational workshops - both remotely and in person.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 62.1%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.34; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 62.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $451K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.