Rotary Club of Puyallup South Hill Charities Funds

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363982178
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Puyallup, WA, USA
Phone
2536044804
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,915
Expenses
$70,201
Assets
$435,697
Liabilities
$5,216

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAINE DUCOTE (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE MAYOR (PRESIDENT EL)

People named in this filing

  • LAINE DUCOTE (PRESIDENT)
  • HOLLY GORSKI (SECRETARY)
  • STEVE MARTINEZ (REPORTING TR)

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

The puyallup south hill rotary brings business and community leaders together to have fun, build relationships, and give back to the local and international community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The puyallup south hill rotary is dedicated to supporting the local community with the following accomplishments from our fund-raising events of duplex rentals, and parking lot activity during the western Washington fair in september for the fiscal year ended june 30, 2025: funded 10,000 scholarships for 10 graduating students or 1,000 per student of emeral ridge and roger high schools: 3,000 to 3 students attending university of Washington; 3,000 to 3 students attending Washington state university; 2,000 to 2 students attending grand canyon university; 1,000 to 1 student attending western governors university; 1,000 to 1 student attending a local higher education institution. Funded 10,700 to local charitable organizations: supported activities for the emerald ridge high school interact club associated with our rotary club, 1,000. Several other organizations; university district rotary club 2,500; stem education program of the american association of university woman 1,200; knock-knock angels associated with the puyallup-sumner chamber of commerce 1,000; student of the month awards earned by emerald ridge and roger high schools of 100 per student for 2 students per month - one from each high school - totaling 1,000 or 5 student awards for the fiscal year; st francis house for teen christmas gifts 2,000; sunrise elementary program communities in schools 1,000; deca sponsorship for rogers high school 1,000. Literacy project for local community facilities: we have and continue to maintain 2 story walks at local parks, set up and supplied 4 libraries in community to promote literacy for all community residents, children and adults. As an ongoing part of the club's fiscal year budget, we earmark funding to sustain this project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 36.6%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 48.3%; rating input score 48; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.21; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 36.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 48/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.