Washington State Smile Partners
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 200381039
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2012
- Forms available
- Form 990 2012
- Location
- Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2067806908
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $510,546
- Expenses
- $452,795
- Assets
- $177,410
- Liabilities
- $15,671
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To make oral health attainable and affordable to any member of our community by providing consumer advocacy, oral health education, and preventive dental services in order to achieve and sustain healthy people and healthy communities
What it reported doing in 2012
The organization provided oral screenings, floride varnish applications, cleaning and sealants (where applicable) on-site and in schools for low income elementary and preschool children in south King and Kitsap Counties. It provided 10,000 patient encounters and over 30,000 units of service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.3%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $344K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.