Puget Sound Kidney Centers Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 454354877
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Everett, WA, USA
- Phone
- 4257402063
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $909,261
- Expenses
- $211,354
- Assets
- $1,881,134
- Liabilities
- $191,021
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JANE NAKAGAWA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL 12/2024))
- KRISTINE DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL BLATNIK (DIRECTOR (UNTIL 11/2024)): $153,149 total reported compensation
- JANE NAKAGAWA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL 12/2024)): $145,265 total reported compensation
- KRISTINE DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $4,923 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Puget sound kidney centers (pskc) foundation is dedicated to advancing philanthropic support of pskc to further their mission to enhance the quality of life of those with kidney disease through outstanding dialysis care, education and community support.
What it reported doing in 2024
To raise charitable support for pskc in providing quality healthcare and support sevices for individuals and families affected by kidney disease.the foundation, along with pskc and kidney auxiliary of puget sound (kaps), provide various types of assistance to patients, including nutritional supplements and vitamins, transportation, and living expenses to help them avoid financial hardship while receiving treatment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 30.8%; rating input score 31
- Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $48.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 76.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.9; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 30.8% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $180K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 31/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.