Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870501933
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Saratoga Springs, UT, USA
Phone
8017030148
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,406
Expenses
$16,652
Assets
$8,753

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tanner Vance (President)
  • Nathan Sutter (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Tanner Vance (President)
  • Nathan Sutter (Vice President)
  • Makayla Johnson (Treasurer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Utah Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (UTRID) is the only professional organization for sign language interpreters in the state of Utah. It is an affiliate chapter of the national Registry of the Interpreters of the Deaf, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Utah RID was established in 1992.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide professional development, continuing education,, and scholarships.

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 has grown recently. 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: 55
  • 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; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd 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 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.