Senior Citizens of Teton County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 820330777
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- Driggs, ID, USA
- Phone
- 2083546973
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $625,334
- Expenses
- $479,465
- Assets
- $855,546
- Liabilities
- $11,519
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Allison Mollenkof (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Allison Mollenkof (Executive Director): $100,743 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Enriching seniors' lives through advocacy, diverse programming, and wellness and nutrition opportunities.
What it reported doing in 2025
Hosting. In recent years, SWOT has been able to attract programming and services from other agencies, organizations and individuals through a policy of offering its facilities and programming assistance at a reduced rate to operations that engage or benefit seniors. The large dining room can be configured to seat 90 for a multimedia presentation and the tables can be moved to accommodate many different types of events and activities. Local non-profits often rent the facility for their conferences and events. These arrangements have proven mutually beneficial. The renting organization gets a highly functional space at an affordable rate and SWOT is able to offer in-house programming that would be otherwise beyond its means. SWOT's hosting extends to professional services for seniors, including Teton Valley VITA, a free tax preparation service, and Senior Health Insurance Benefits Advisors (SHIBA), which offers assistance with Medicare enrollments and claims. Having these services available in a familiar, face-to-face setting is a tremendous benefit to Teton Valley seniors, especially considering how limited and expensive equivalent professional services are in our area. Finally, we have developed several event partnerships, like the recent adventure travel series organized by a local individual. Although not all of these are directly aimed at seniors, seniors often make up the bulk of the audience. In this partnership arrangement, SWOT provides the facility set-up and technical support, and the event organizer focuses on the event itself. Again, SWOT is making use of the systems and resources it has built in the last five years to leverage programs and services that we could not offer on our own. This broad hosting program has come with a cost. Facility rentals for private parties were once a major source of revenue for SWOT. By discontinuing these private rentals and outfitting the Center to attract the kind of programming our seniors wanted and needed, we sacrificed some revenue but greatly increased the scope of service to our community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 31
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 23.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 32.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $429K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.