Olympic Park Associates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271305062
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Olympia, WA, USA
Phone
2069497020
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,802
Expenses
$20,841
Assets
$434,295
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONNA OSSEWARD (BOARD PRESIDENT-EMERITUS)
  • DONNA OSSEWARD (PRESIDENT-EMERITUS)
  • TIM MCNULTY (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN BRIDGE (BOARD PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DONNA OSSEWARD (BOARD PRESIDENT-EMERITUS)
  • DAVID FRIEDMAN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DONNA OSSEWARD (PRESIDENT-EMERITUS)

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 protect the wilderness and ecological integrity of olympic national park.

What it reported doing in 2025

We read, respond to notices of ea's & eis's from the national park service (nps), u.s. Navy, u.s. Forest service, noaa, and anybody else promoting changes to olympic national park (onp). To do that we attend scoping meetings in a variety of places, we ask members & others to write comments on ea's & eis's. We read nps news releases and, if needed, respond with our opinions. Many of the issues are ongoing for many years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • 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: 41.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.84; rating input score 96; 96th 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: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 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.

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

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.