Beaverton Farmers Market Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931056376
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Beaverton, OR, USA
Phone
5036435345
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$514,790
Expenses
$538,444
Assets
$301,665
Liabilities
$19,460

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM PEPPER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TIM PEPPER (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE KLOFT (VICE PRESIDE)
  • LORI SIEVERT (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to give our community access to a wide variety of fresh, local, in-season farm and artisan food products direct from the producer, to provide an informal social gathering place in an open-air setting, to enhance the beaverton community, and to support our local growers and artisan food makers by providing them with direct marketing opportunities in our markets.

What it reported doing in 2025

The market manages a grant from the american heart society which provides funds for individuals who are identified as "food insecure" by the portland clinic. Those individuals are given a voucher which they redeem at the market for tokens, a form of market currency, which allows them to shop for food with our vendors. We also manage a grant from the tualatin soil and conservation district, which we supplement with additional funds. Both monies are put into our vendor development grant program. This grant provides funds for applicants from our small farms and businesses for projects and or equipment that will help them grow their businesses. Capital is often in short supply for these start up businesses. A grant through this program often provides the "leg up" they need to make improvements. The market also participates in the double up food bucks program which provides coupons that will match up to 20 purchased with a snap benefits card. The coupons are then used to buy fresh fruits and vegetables from our farmers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 34.3%; rating input score 34; 31st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $454K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.