Washington School-Based Health Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450937382
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2064566533
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$480,407
Expenses
$473,048
Assets
$502,730
Liabilities
$5,556

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Erin Dury (Executive Director from April 2024)
  • Sandra Lennon (Executive Director to March 2024)
  • Sara Rigel (President)
  • Peter Asante (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erin Dury (Executive Director from April 2024): $87,578 total reported compensation
  • Sandra Lennon (Executive Director to March 2024): $44,883 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advance and advocate for school-based health care, working with communities and partners to achieve equity in health and educational opportunity for children and youth statewide.

What it reported doing in 2024

WA SBHA advocates at the state level and federal level for school-based health center (SBHC) funding and support; builds capacity and a community of practice in school-based health care by providing resources, trainings, technical assistance, and networking; and communicates SBHC news and opportunities to Washington educators, healthcare providers, policymakers, and others invested in student health. Capacity-Building: In 2024 WA SBHA hosted an in-person state school-based health care conference, hosted numerous webinars and other virtual events for the SBHC field, and conducted site visits and provided direct technical assistance to SBHCs and communities statewide. Policy & Advocacy: Advocacy by WA SBHA and partners led to continued funding to SCBHC across Washington.

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 87% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.1%; rating input score 88; 51st 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: 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: 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: 1.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $353K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.