Global Washington

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270521628
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066222294
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$595,626
Expenses
$665,584
Assets
$253,909
Liabilities
$1,371

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH STOKELY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JANE MESECK (VICE PRESIDENT & STRATEGIC ADVISOR)
  • SARA ROGGE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH STOKELY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $162,500 total reported compensation
  • JANE MESECK (VICE PRESIDENT & STRATEGIC ADVISOR): $16,803 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Non-profit organization supporting the global development sector in Washington state.

What it reported doing in 2025

Events - global Washington organized various events designed to fulfill its mission of convening, strengthening, and promoting the global development community. These events brought members together in person, allowing them to connect, learn from each other, and explore partnership opportunities. In 2025-2026, over 13 events were hosted, including workshops, conferences, and issue-related events. These programs provided valuable resources to members, helping them enhance their own initiatives and build stronger organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $528K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.