White Center Community Development Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721526567
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066941082
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,316,075
Expenses
$2,940,368
Assets
$37,197,350
Liabilities
$21,261,269

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KALEHUA KAAPANA FALETOGO (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICIA ALLEN-DICK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • AARON GARCIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AARON GARCIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $140,911 total reported compensation
  • NINA LAU (PLACE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER): $116,441 total reported compensation
  • SPENCER LAU JR (FINANCE MANAGER): $93,407 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote a high quality of life for white center residents and stakeholders through the development of authentic leadership opportunities and community based neighborhood initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fiscal sponsorship: the white center community development association (wccda) provides administrative and financial sponsorship to bipoc-led organizations in white center and seattle that lack 501(c)(3) status. This program enables these groups to secure funding for initiatives supporting bipoc and lgbtqia+ communities. By empowering grassroots efforts, wccda enhances community engagement, addresses poverty and racial disparities, and supports projects aimed at fostering social change and advancing racial equity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 97
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.5%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $775.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.65; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.5% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $141K · 11 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $320K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.