Kittitas Co 4H Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204861098
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Ellensburg, WA, USA
Phone
5099627507
Rating
97
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development - Agricultural

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,737
Expenses
$56,245
Assets
$196,019

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jon Blackmore (Vice President)
  • Toni Taylor (President)

People named in this filing

  • Jon Blackmore (Vice President)
  • Kylie Rinehart (Secretary)
  • Marie Riegel (Treasurer)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide funding and guidance for the operation of the National 4-H Program in Kittitas County, Washington.

What it reported doing in 2025

Funding provided for the continued operation of 4-H programs in Kittitas County, Washington. 339 children, ages 9 - 18, completed the program in 2025. Approximately 104 adults provide leadership to these children in various capacities.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.49; rating input score 77; 77th 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: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.