Miss Pierce County Scholarship Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452888109
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Gig Harbor, WA, USA
Phone
2532300200
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,253
Expenses
$34,632
Assets
$55,444
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jo Reasons (Board President)

People named in this filing

  • Jennifer Goble (Board Director)
  • McKinley Bowles (Teen Director)
  • Jo Reasons (Board President)

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 scholarships to young women in Pierce County 13-28 years of age.

What it reported doing in 2025

We focus on the building the interview and life skills of young women in Pierce County. For young women between the ages of 18-28 who compete in the Miss Pierce County Scholarship Program, this can translate not only into scholarship dollars for their education, but that leg up on their first job interview. In our Teen program for young women between the ages of 13-18, we work with these young ladies to not only to build their mentoring skills, but to also build their involvement in their community through volunteer work. _

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.