Washington State Patrol Memorial Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911222555
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Prosser, WA, USA
Phone
3605974411
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$639,141
Expenses
$444,444
Assets
$2,267,857
Liabilities
$2,366

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Megan King (Executive Director/Manager)
  • Heather Davis (Vice-President)
  • Kelly Gregerson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Megan King (Executive Director/Manager): $66,239 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We, the Washington State Patrol Memorial Foundation, are entrusted to preserve the memory of Washington State Patrol fallen officers and to provide assistance to active and retired Washington State Patrol employees and their families in time of need.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Washington State Patrol Memorial Foundation was founded in 1982 exclusively for charitable, educational, and benevolent purposes under section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The foundation provides financial assistance to Washington State Patrol employees who become disabled in the line of duty, to surviving spouses and children of fallen officers and employees who die in the line of duty, and for the families of employees impacted by catastrophic injury or illness. The foundation also has an education scholarship program for employees or dependent children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.2%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.6%; rating input score 97; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 30.5%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.1; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.2% of revenue deployed · 44.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $199K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 26 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.