Cascadia Clubhouse

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933709691
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Sedro Woolley, WA, USA
Phone
3609285884
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$138,837
Expenses
$105,227
Assets
$41,164
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SEANNA HERRING JENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KERRI HELGESON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SEANNA HERRING JENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $22,521 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 exempt purpose of cascadia clubhouse is to build an equitable community for adults with developmental disabilities by fostering social connections and personal growth through the arts, recreational activities, and enrichment programming.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024 - we increased our enrollment from 13 in january to 63 by the end of the year increased from 1 programming day per week to 4 january had 15 sessions and ended the year with an average of 200 per month partnered with mount vernon parks & recreation and moved into their hillcrest location partnered with the salvation army and moved into their facility to also provide programming in anacortes at the beginning of our 2nd quarter, we hired our first employees moved our monthly dance from the mount vernon senior center to hillcrest part to accommodate our growing attendance.

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 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.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.8%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 45.9%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.2%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.8% of revenue deployed · 45.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.