Lake Forest Park Rotary Charitable Found

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861129290
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Lk Forest Park, WA, USA
Phone
2064655980
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,048
Expenses
$184,654
Assets
$114,990
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paul McMurry (President)
  • Terry Smith (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Paul McMurry (President)
  • Claire Conway (Secretary)
  • Allison Reagan (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lake Forest Park Rotary Charitable Foundation's mission is to support initiatives to improve the lives of King County citizens. They extend their aid on both a regional and national level during emergencies. Additionaly, they align with Rotary International's projects. The foundation actively contributes to community service, particularly by providing food assistance to local families in partnership with charitable organizations like Market Bucks and Popy's Cafe.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community service food, holiday and social support for local familes through local charitable agencies such as Market Bucks, Popy's Cafe and others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.5%; rating input score 91; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 5.8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.