Husky Sailing Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 852293625
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Kent, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2062854211
- Rating
- 38
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $43,096
- Expenses
- $25,338
- Assets
- $168,000
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN THOMAS (President)
- CAROL BUCHAN (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- BRIAN THOMAS (President)
- CAROL BUCHAN (Vice President)
- DEREK BOTTLES (Secretary)
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
To raise funds, organize events, employ coaches and other activities to support the developement of the members of the husky sailing team. This organization is not affliated with the university of Washington.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation raised funds, organized events and worked with the husky sailing team members to support thier fund raising activities. The foundation members meet with the sailing team leaders on a regular basis to support and mentor them in order to facilitate their success at regattas.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 3
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 2.2%; rating input score 2
- Program expense ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 4
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.2%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.63; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- 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: 2.2% of revenue deployed · 3.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $934 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.