Episcopal Impact Fund FKA Episcopal Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943345498
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158697809
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,299,745
Expenses
$1,230,143
Assets
$7,649,758
Liabilities
$134,261

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Michelle Myles Chambers (President)
  • Peter Kidder (Vice President)
  • Christina Alvarez (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christina Alvarez (Executive Director): $258,127 total reported compensation
  • Kieran King (Communications and Brand Director): $140,232 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Episcopal Impact Fund has a vision of a Bay Area where all our neighbors have the opportunities and resources they need to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

Episcopal Impact Fund has a vision of a Bay Area where all our neighbors have the opportunities and resources they need to thrive. The Impact Fund has been helping elevate the lives of our Bay Area neighbors experiencing poverty. Today, we continue that work by focusing on safe and secure housing as a first step to breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. To achieve our vision, we unite values-driven supporters with the hands-on work of changemaking nonprofits to form a community making an impact throughout the Bay Area.Our Housing Security and Poverty Relief grants supported nonprofit organizations working to tackle the region's affordable housing crisis by reducing barriers to housing and economic stability for families and youth. We also continued to support the churches of the Diocese of California in their Social Ministries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 84.2%; rating input score 84; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.22; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $788K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.