Bradley Angle
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 510188664
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Portland, OR, US
- Phone
- 503.232.1528
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Family Violence Shelters
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,005,517
- Expenses
- $4,461,283
- Assets
- $3,535,007
- Liabilities
- $1,110,148
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARGOT MARTIN (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- RICHARD SEYMOUR (FINANCE DIR.): $113,505 total reported compensation
- BRIANNE CONDON (PAST EXEC DIR): $109,793 total reported compensation
- MARGOT MARTIN (CEO): $92,178 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Bradley Angle serves anyone affected by domestic violence, valuing the dignity and personal story of everyone who comes for support, and respecting that survivors should have control over their own lives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Economic empowerment programfor many survivors of domestic violence, access to their own financial resources and financial management skills are key to getting and staying free of abusive relationships. 98% of survivors have experienced financial abuse. The economic empowerment program is one of a kind, and the frist to be offered by a domestic violence provider in Oregon. It offers financial education and economic empowerment tools like match-savings accounts to help survivors increase their financial self-sufficiency. The popular making cent$ classes are offered four times a year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.3%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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; 72nd 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 69.3% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $114K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.