Brilliance Labs

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871494224
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
8083450230
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,544
Expenses
$297,275
Assets
$3,448,770
Liabilities
$6,698

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY HAWTHORNE (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY HAWTHORNE (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,650 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 christ-centered mission of brilliance labs is to catalyze innovation and strategic investment for the flourishing of under-resourced and multi-ethnic communities in portland and worldwide (continued on schedule o)supporting new churches, social enterprises, and faith-based ventures that represent and serve them

What it reported doing in 2024

Micrograntsthese microgrants carry the legacy of central bible church by funding churches and organizations that are making a difference in our city, especially among those under-resourced or otherwise neglected by majority culture churches and ministries. Grants totalling $73,607 were provided during the fiscal year ending june 30, 2025.brilliance labs awarded grants to the following non-profit organizations and churches: we belong pdx sacred spaces pdx (continued on schedule o) sanctuary inn refugee care collective as is church columbia view church (icpdx) house of healing pdx one h.o.p.e. Fellowship the language hospitality project love inc of clackamas county the contingent restoration church

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 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 32.6%; rating input score 33; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -126%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.6; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 44.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -103.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $188K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 33/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.