Teton County Foundation for Public Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992309444
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Jackson, WY, USA
Phone
7039650890
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$280,211
Expenses
$63,692
Assets
$216,570
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth Agnew (Board Member, Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth Agnew (Board Member, Executive Director): $4,153 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We will support the development of an exceptional public health system in Teton County through securing and distributing financial resources within the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Teton County Foundation for Public Health awarded a grant in the total of $55,000 to the Sexual and Reproductive Health Program at the Teton County Health Department in Jackson, WY. This grant was administered to help cover gaps in the program budget in order to adequately meet demand for clinical services. Services include preventative screenings such as pap smears, mammograms, and colonoscopies, low-to-no-cost contraception, pelvic ultrasounds, PrEP case management, and screening for sexually transmitted infections. The majority of grant funds cover nurse practitioner contract hour pay, as these donations are the sole source of funding for these positions. Grant funds additionally help cover long acting reversible contraceptive devices, other contraceptive methods, lab fees, medications, and clinical supplies. By offering these services to low-income and uninsured individuals in the community, the Sexual and Reproductive Health Program reduces financial barriers and increases access to healthcare.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.7%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $194.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 23rd 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: 77.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.4; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19.7% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.