Team Read

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010852888
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2062520069
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Remedial Reading, Reading Encouragement

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,126,469
Expenses
$821,089
Assets
$2,245,062
Liabilities
$126,557

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matt Hrdlicka (President)
  • Ingrid Stegemoeller (Vice President)
  • Melissa Pailthorp (Executive Director, former)
  • Ebony Pattenaude (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Melissa Pailthorp (Executive Director, former): $82,820 total reported compensation
  • Ebony Pattenaude (Executive Director): $65,362 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Year-round, one-to-one tutoring program provided at Title 1 schools to students not at grade-level proficiency in reading. Tutors are area teens recruited and trained to deliver reading support.

What it reported doing in 2024

Team Read's mission is: "Team Read propels students to become inspired, joyful readers and teens to become impactful leaders, ready to succeed in school and life, building stronger communities for all." In alignment with this mission, students in grades 8 through 12 serve as reading coaches (tutors) to 2nd and 3rd-grade students (4th grade in some schools) who are reading at least one year below grade level. This dual-impact model helps students reading below grade level become confident readers and helps teens develop work and life skills. This year, Team Read strengthened both program fidelity and responsiveness to site-level needs through targeted improvements to curriculum, logistics, and staff support. All districts implemented a consistent curriculum that included Word Work and phonics packets to reinforce foundational reading skills. Updates to the Power Reader Journal and the integration of monthly themes further enhanced instructional alignment and student engagement. Site Coordinators were supported through structured training, regular check-ins, and new tools like observation notebooks, which promoted quality implementation. Reading Coaches benefited from more flexible training options, with ongoing professional development in literacy and behavior management generating continued interest.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.3%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 64.2%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.3% of revenue deployed · 64.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $527K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.