Chelan- Douglas County Casagal

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911643408
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wenatchee, WA, USA
Phone
5096627350
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$472,203
Expenses
$396,434
Assets
$487,427
Liabilities
$20,296

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE BROXSON (Vice President)
  • LINDA DIMMITT (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA MELVIN (Executive Dir.): $77,665 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Chelan/Douglas CASA/GAL equips and empowers court appointed volunteers to advocate for the Best interests of children and youth who have endured abuse or neglect so that they will have safety, permanency, and wellbeing.

What it reported doing in 2025

CASA VOLUNTEERS are professionally-trained TO advocate for CHILDREN WHO HAVE ENDURED ABUSE AND NEGLECT both in and out of courtROOM. CASA VOLUNTEERS are instrumental in ensuring the system designed to protect child victims works effectively. Their advocacy helps resolve the case in a timely manner and ensures the child's best interests are considered at every decision point during the case. CASA VOLUNTEERS bring the community perspective and standard into dependency proceedings, thus contributing to the court's desire to operate openly and fairly. Utilizing trained, culturally-competent, supervised volunteers, the CASA model leverages scarce public resources and provides high-quality advocacy for the needs of children and youth ACROSS TWO COURT JURISDICTIONS.

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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th 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; 64th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.1% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $382K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.