Interlink Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943156974
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Clarkston, WA, USA
Phone
5097519143
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$376,597
Expenses
$248,395
Assets
$610,767
Liabilities
$51,725

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Havens (Executive Director)
  • John Sullivan (President)
  • Dan Coy (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Havens (Executive Director): $23,386 total reported compensation
  • Loren Beauchamp (Trans Admin): $23,220 total reported compensation
  • Denise Key (Secretary/Treasurer): $9,006 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide volunteers to enable elders and those with disabilities to live independently in their own home.

What it reported doing in 2024

Interlink Volunteers provided 2,331 escorted transportation services to care receivers, as well as 38 minor home safety and repair services, 6 wooden ramps, 8 aluminum ramps, and 46 deliveries. 151 people received at least one service. We had 50 volunteers in 2024 who provided 2,210 volunteer hours during the year for our care receivers, broken down as follows: 198 hours for aluminum ramps; 205 hours for wooden ramps; 127 hours for minor home repairs; 1,635 hours for transportation services; and 45 hours for delivery services

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.46; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $195K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.