Girls on the Run Snohomish County

Legal name: Girls on the Run of Snohomish County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473083211
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Mountlake Terrace, WA, US
Phone
2069317551
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$502,993
Expenses
$518,576
Assets
$226,622
Liabilities
$38,146

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGAN WOLFE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEGAN WOLFE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $78,288 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Girls on the Run inspires girls of all abilities to recognize their individual strengths, while building a sense of connection in a team setting.

What it reported doing in 2024

Girls on the run is a program for girls in third - eighth grades that encourages girls to recognize their individual strengths and celebrate connections with others. Each season, girls gain a better understanding of who they are, what is important to them, the value of teamwork, healthy relationships, and how they can have a positive impact on the world. Girls also make a meaningful contribution to their community through a team-organized community impact project. Physical activity is woven into the program to inspire an appreciation of fitness, healthy habits, and to teach life skills including: treating others with care, practicing gratitude and managing emotions. Each season culminates with a girls on the run 5k event. This celebratory, non-competitive event provides girls with a sense of accomplishment and instills the value of goal setting at a young age. During the fiscal year, we served 828 girls in 37 different schools or community sites. During the fiscal year we gave $79,000 of financial aid to 425 girls to enable them to participate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: Pass
    • 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: -3.1%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 72.5% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $360K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.