Safe Kids Utah

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020798812
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
3852226732
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Automotive Safety

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$460,461
Expenses
$412,079
Assets
$133,231
Liabilities
$4,319

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYLEE ROGERS (CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT)
  • NIKKI CUNARD (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CORRYN WERMEL (TREASURER/COORDINATOR): $106,578 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To educate the community on safety, using partnerships, programs, training and events to help prevent future injuries and improve public health.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educating the community on safety, using partnerships, programs, training and events to help prevent future injuries and improve public health. Safe kids Utah (sku) is the leading organization in car seat education. It reaches over 14,100 families each year with its car seat education program and activities. It also checks over 1,600 car seats per year and distributes nearly 1,500 car seats a year. It also educates through social media outlets and through traditional media to do outreach through schools, community events and partnering organizations. Sku works to reach underserved families to get them the proper education to help their kids stay safe and still have fun being a kid.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Affiliate network. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending through affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $344K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.