NAMI of Whatcom County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911245978
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Bellingham, WA, USA
Phone
3606714950
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$305,232
Expenses
$148,443
Assets
$316,905
Liabilities
$584

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kimberly Brown (Board President)
  • Mieka Rhoades (Board Vice President)
  • Kim Sauter (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Sauter (Executive Director): $39,699 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Support education and advocacy for those affected by mental health conditions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Support benefited 3,600 people and includes direct client services such as no barrier mental health support groups and the NAMI-Whatcom Helpline. NAMI-Whatcom direct support starts with a staff-led helpline. This service helps people find mental health resources for themselves or a loved one when they are unsure of where to turn. Our support groups are peer-led, meaning that the people leading the groups share important life experiences with the participants of that program and speak from the perspective of an equal. The groups are accessible to anyone regardless of a formal diagnosis. Group attendees listen and support each other through sharing experiences in a way that fights the stigma and isolation of mental illness, creating a supportive community. We also provide short term 1:1 peer support through the Whatcom Peer Collaborative.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 73.3%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.13; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36% of revenue deployed · 73.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.