Citizens for North Kitsap Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
994740450
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Poulsbo, WA, USA
Phone
2077989378
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,600
Expenses
$3,332
Assets
$3,268
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Douglas Newell (Co-Chair)
  • Daria Ilgen (Co-Chair)
  • Matt Consolini (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

We are a committee of citizens who support ballot initiatives that support the North Kitsap School District. We raise public awareness of these ballot measures by engaging with the public through social media, sign waving events, informational sessions and door to door canvassing.

What it reported doing in 2024

We felt we accomplished what we set out to do in 2024, which was to generate enough community support so that North Kitsap School District No. 400 Proposition No. 1 would pass. As a result, the District was allowed their capital levy to support the construction, modernization and remodeling of school facilities district-wide, consistent with priority projects identified by the District's Facilities Advisory Committee, as well as technology equipment and infrastructure upgrades. Their levy will enhance student and staff health, safety and security, provide equitable learning spaces at elementary schools and extend the useful life of existing school buildings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.5%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.