Port Angeles Marathon Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331032171
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Port Angeles, WA, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Reported finances

Revenue
$394,101
Expenses
$374,132
Assets
$119,165
Liabilities
$20,269

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSHUA JONES (PRESIDENT)
  • NICHOLAS SIMPSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KAITLIN ALDERSON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • CARMEN GEYER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • TAYLYN SIMPSON (BOARD MEMBER)

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

To organize and produce a high quality marathonshowcasing the port angeles/sequim area along theolympic discoverty trail

What it reported doing in 2024

The port angeles marathon association gives back to the communities of sequim and port angeles in many ways including offering the kids marathon program to all clallam county elementray schools and working with civic groups, service clubs ans school teams and programs by offering cash donations in return for volunteer time. Over the past 8 years pama donated more than $100,000 to local organization. Many runners align with charity organization and gather pledges. Running for charity not only helps raise funds for a good cause, it also help motivate and inspire runners because the feel accountable to their sponsors and orgaization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 64.2%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 5.1%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 64.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $240K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.