Consumer Education and Training Services
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 912061723
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2062677017
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Financial Counseling
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $303,551
- Expenses
- $274,185
- Assets
- $509,218
- Liabilities
- $96,295
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Tony Leahy (Executive Director)
- Aditi Paranjpye (Director President)
- Dan Youngblut (Director Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Tony Leahy (Executive Director): $204,541 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CENTS is a financial education nonprofit organization with a mission of helping people to improve their financial health. In 1995, CENTS was founded by the Honorable Karen A. Overstreet, the first women bankruptcy judge in the history of Washington, and veteran attorneys and financial professionals. All of CENTS programs are provided free-of-charge
What it reported doing in 2024
DEBT SLAPPED CENTS designed a financial education curriculum to help high school students obtain critical information so they can make informed decisions about postsecondary education or training, The curriculum was used as the centerpiece of the statewide Student Loan Awareness Month SLAM campaign, which received a proclamation from Governor Jay Inslee. In the 2023-24 academic year, CENTS provided 84 Debt Slapped classes accross the state, focusing on areas with higher percentages of Latino/Latina/Latinix students, while enhancing the curriculum. www.debtslapped.org.
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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.5%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 66.9%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.5% of revenue deployed · 66.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $184K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.