Wyoming Rural Electric Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830207211
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cheyenne, WY, USA
Phone
3076340727
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$937,890
Expenses
$1,050,278
Assets
$794,230
Liabilities
$119,233

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN JOYCE (PRESIDENT)
  • SANDRA HRANCHAK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHAWN TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAWN TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $247,843 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 Wyoming rural electric association exists to lead, unify, and support the efforts of our member electric cooperatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Wrea promotes leadership and civic awareness among young people and is actively involved in the energy share program. Wrea serves as a united representative for its members, promoting cooperative principals and rural electrification in Wyoming. Wrea lobbies on behalf of its member cooperatives in regulatory matters and legislative issues at state and national levels. Wrea publishes the Wyoming rural electric news (the wren magazine) which is mailed to rural electric co-op members monthly except in january. Wrea provides educational seminars for directors and employees throughout the year. It co-sponsors the cody hotline school and the annual lineman scholarship golf tournament.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

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: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 43.8%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.7% of revenue deployed · 43.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $460K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $248K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.