Frank Love Elementary PTA 61027

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911473721
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Bothell, WA, USA
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$59,458
Expenses
$49,607
Assets
$84,571
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Renae Sowald (President)
  • Stephanie Sullivan (Co-President)

People named in this filing

  • Renae Sowald (President)
  • Stephanie Sullivan (Co-President)
  • Megan Harrison (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Frank Love PTA mission is to promote the health, welfare, safety, and education of children and youth by working in partnership with the school community to develop programs, projects, and activities for our children and youth.

What it reported doing in 2025

The 5th grade boosters raised dedicated funds for supporting all 94 5th grade students. They paid for part of the expenses for each student to go to camp, gave a free yearbook and spirit wear hoodie to each student, and hosted a free graduation ceremony and party for all 5th grade students. They also purchased playground toys like balls and jump ropes as class legacy gift.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.6%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.