Mary's Place

Legal name: Mary's Place Seattle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272087950
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066218474
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,545,708
Expenses
$30,113,121
Assets
$51,676,641
Liabilities
$2,454,262

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOMINIQUE ALEX (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOMINIQUE ALEX (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $318,063 total reported compensation
  • JASON GORTNEY (CHIEF PROGRAM & INNOVATION OFFICER): $199,543 total reported compensation
  • JAKE GUSTAFSON (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $195,729 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ensuring that no child sleeps outside by centering equity and opportunity for women and families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mary's place provided 365 days of services to homeless women, children, and families from july 1 through june 30 that includes but are not limited to: served 125,000 pounds of food, provided 227,996 shelter nights to single and multi-parent households with minor children. We offered daytime support, counseling, referrals, clothing, assistance, telephone use, classes, naturopathic services, showers, laundry facilities, and a warm, safe place out of the rain over the course of the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 63.6% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.5M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.