Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273266712
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Carnation, WA, US
Phone
425-549-0316
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$264,774
Expenses
$286,463
Assets
$83,720
Liabilities
$6,319

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK MCGLOTHLIN (Vice President)
  • WAYNE GULLSTAD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAUREN SILVER-TURNER (Executive Dir.): $88,125 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To protect and enhance the lives, livelihoods, lands, and waters of the beautiful Snoqualmie River Valley.

What it reported doing in 2024

Agricultural viability and watershed planning: svpa engages in regional land-use and watershed planning to protect farmland and support long-term agricultural viability in the snoqualmie valley. We collaborate with agencies, tribes, and partners through efforts such as fish-farm-flood and county planning processes. This advances balanced, science-based policies that strengthen farming and flood resiliance.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $218K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.