The U.S. Nonprofit Safeguarding Crosswalk Project Founder & Principal Researcher: Saba Gul, LL.M.

Washington Safeguarding Baseline 2026

First edition · September 2026

What does a parent, a participant, or a referring agency actually find when they look up a nonprofit online? This study answers that question for Washington State with the project’s first empirical dataset. From IRS records of 882 Washington human-services and youth-development charities with annual revenue of at least $250,000, a stratified random sample of 120 organizations was drawn by algorithm — not by hand — and the 100 that serve program participants directly were coded against a written codebook on six public indicators: a published safeguarding policy, a participant-facing conduct code, a visible way to raise a concern, stated volunteer screening, safeguarding training, and a named safeguarding role. An evidence URL and verbatim quote stand behind every positive code, and all 120 organizations’ Form 990 filings were read as a comparator. The results document a sector-wide expectation gap: 100% of sampled organizations report the whistleblower and conflict-of-interest policies the federal form asks about, while 11% publish a safeguarding policy and 66% show no public safeguarding signal at all. Membership in a national network is the strongest predictor of disclosure (71% versus 27% for independent organizations) — yet the strongest single framework in the sample belonged to an independent organization under no mandate at all. Silence is the norm; it is not a matter of capacity. Results are reported in aggregate only: no organization is named, and none will ever be named for lacking an indicator. Released under CC BY 4.0.

66 of 100 — direct-service organizations show no public safeguarding signal at all.

Panel a — The comparator What IRS Form 990 asks about versus what nonprofit websites disclose. 100 percent of organizations report the whistleblower policy and the conflict-of-interest policy Form 990 asks about. No form asks about a safeguarding policy or a visible way for participants to raise a concern; only 11 percent of organizations publish a safeguarding policy, and only 11 percent give participants a visible way to raise a concern. The comparator ASKED ABOUT ON IRS FORM 990 Written whistleblower policy 100% Conflict-of-interest policy 100% ASKED ABOUT BY NO FORM Publishes a safeguarding policy 11% Gives participants a visible way to raise a concern 11% Form 990 items: all 120 sampled filings. Website items: the 100 direct-service organizations.
Panel b — The six public indicators The six public indicators, percent of 100 organizations coded Yes, sorted highest to lowest: volunteer screening stated 24 percent, published safeguarding policy 11 percent, participant reporting channel 11 percent, safeguarding training 11 percent, named safeguarding role 7 percent, code of conduct 4 percent. The six public indicators Volunteer screening stated 24% Published safeguarding policy 11% Participant reporting channel 11% Safeguarding training 11% Named safeguarding role 7% Code of conduct 4%
Figure 7 — What the form asks about, and what it doesn’t. Stratified random sample of 120 Washington human-services and youth-development charities (revenue ≥ $250,000), of which 100 serve participants directly. Website indicators measure public evidence only, not internal practice. Source: Gul (2026), Washington Safeguarding Baseline 2026.
Download the PDF
Suggested citation Gul, S. (2026). Washington Safeguarding Baseline 2026: Public safeguarding disclosures of Washington nonprofits (First edition). The U.S. Nonprofit Safeguarding Crosswalk Project. https://pseacrosswalk.org/baseline-2026.html