Icicle Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911943099
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Leavenworth, WA, USA
Phone
5095480429
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$368,744
Expenses
$685,401
Assets
$56,722,905
Liabilities
$5,141,211

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MITSU IWASAKI (PRESIDENT)
  • PHIL LACEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINE MORGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 10/31/24)
  • PHIL LACEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS OF 11/1/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES SCHROEDER (TREASURER): $210,908 total reported compensation
  • MITSU IWASAKI (PRESIDENT): $165,233 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE MORGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 10/31/24): $164,650 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the icicle fund is to support the environment, the arts and history through innovative collaboration in north central Washington.

What it reported doing in 2024

Protect the environment, advance the appreciation of the arts, and promote the natural and cultural history of the wenatchee river watershed and the greater north central Washington region, by supporting chelan-douglas land trust, the nature conservancy, the trust for public land, icicle creek center for the arts, wenatchee river institute, methow arts alliance, and other qualified nonprofits through our community grants program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 54
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.5%; rating input score 99; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 44.4%; rating input score 44; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -85.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 82.76; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.7% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $562K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 44 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.