American Leadership Forum of Oregon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943106407
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5036362288
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$518,328
Expenses
$593,328
Assets
$500,628
Liabilities
$184,331

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH GREENMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH GREENMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the american leadership forum of Oregon is to join and strengthen leaders in order to better serve the public good. It enhances leadership by building on the strengths of diversity and by promoting collaborative problem solving within and among communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Oregon fellows program: the american leadership forum (alf) of Oregon is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that brings a diverse range of corporate, public and non-profit leaders together to build effective networks of collaboration, service and community throughout the state. By creating a network of leaders with established bonds of trust and mutual support, alf strengthens the commitment of leaders to utilize collaborative approaches to dealing with emergent and complex community and statewide issues. Alf Oregon hosts two cohorts each year of talented, proven leaders who commit to meeting together once a month from august to may. Each month, the cohort members ("fellows") learn about and contemplate challenges facing different Oregon communities while also digging into the alf Oregon curriculum.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 64.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $383K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.