Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270056693
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
9714107283
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sexual Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,388,590
Expenses
$1,227,266
Assets
$743,182
Liabilities
$272,070

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHANNON ROSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHANNON ROSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $112,481 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Oregon satf's mission is to build, connect, and sustain survivor-centered systems to prevent sexual violence and advocate for equitable, trauma-informed responses across Oregon. We accomplish this by advancing primary prevention, fostering collaboration, providing multi-disciplinary training, and policy leadership statewide, and nationally.

What it reported doing in 2024

Oregon satf's prevention program works to eliminate the root causes of violence and abuse in order to stop them before they occur. This includes work being done within the scope of the cdc's rape prevention and education program (rpe), the locally funded bridge project, and other activities to address the prevention of sexual violence. Accomplishments this fiscal year include: providing technical support, skills building, and oversight to four rpe sub-grantees who are implementing violence prevention strategies within their local communities, often in collaboration with youth centers, middle and high schools, and other community spaces that invest in youth and community wellness and safety; delivering a multi-day comprehensive prevention training and education to over 50 preventionists across the state of Oregon; creating a dedicated prevention resources in spanish page on our website to expand language access and inclusion; building and strengthening partnerships across child abuse and the sexual and domestic violence service system to better provide wraparound support to families and communities with healthy relationship skills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $70.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 46th 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.