Wireless Infrastructure Association Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541551099
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
8007590300
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,833
Expenses
$41,699
Assets
$864,637
Liabilities
$120,584

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK HALLEY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK HALLEY (PRESIDENT): $1,210,588 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The wia foundation is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization dedicated to advancing the wireless industry by encouraging and promoting education, research, and training programs. The wia foundation supports efforts to raise awareness about careers in the wireless and broadband industries and activities to enable a strong workforce necessary to achieve wia's mission of achieving connectivity everywhere.

What it reported doing in 2024

The wia foundation is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization dedicated to advancing the wireless industry by encouraging and promoting education, research, and training programs. The wia foundation supports efforts to raise awareness about careers in the wireless and broadband industries and activities to enable a strong and diverse workforce necessary to achieve wia's mission of achieving connectivity everywhere.in 2023 and 2024, wia foundation hosted a luncheon to celebrate the outstanding contributions of women to the growth and development of the telecommunications industry. The members of congress, the fcc, and industry leadership that support development of the workforce needed to build america's 5g wireless networks were recognized.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 78.9%; rating input score 79; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 22.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.74; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 102.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.