Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364026135
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023299700
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,401,281
Expenses
$1,213,294
Assets
$1,949,726
Liabilities
$424,331

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT TENNANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHARLES STELLAR (PRESIDENT/CEO THROUGH 2/25)
  • REBEKAH FIEHN (Vice President Finance)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT TENNANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $225,000 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES STELLAR (PRESIDENT/CEO THROUGH 2/25): $199,651 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MCNUTT (VP OF EDUCATION AND EVENTS): $189,682 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To foster widespread support for the adoption of electronic commerce within the health care industry in the united states of america.

What it reported doing in 2025

Member education programs - these programs expenses include national conferences held throughout the year to convene industry and government leaders in a national forum focused upon issue briefings, policy updates, interactive discussions, and educational topics. These programs also include various workshops, seminars, and meetings provided by the organization that serve as a forum for the latest subjects and regulatory proposals of interest and importance to members. The meetings also offer a concentrated opportunity for the exchange of ideas and discussion of implementation and other issues among colleagues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% 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

MIXED - 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: 89
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 20

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: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 60.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 33 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.