Equality Chamber Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842484671
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029512827
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Lesbian, Gay Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,926
Expenses
$79,995
Assets
$4,155
Liabilities
$8,400

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK ALGYER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DAQUISE MONTGOMERY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MEISHA PITTMAN (DIRECTOR)
  • MATTHEWS MAXWELL (DIRECTOR)
  • MARCUS WILLIAMS (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The equality chamber is committed to serving our lgbtqia+ community in the dmv area. We will advocate for those who have historically endured and continue to combat discrimination and marginalization.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since receiving the hef grant, we have successfully launched the dc safe and inclusive workplaces leadership and development program, focusing on the unique needs of lgbtq+ employees, including bipoc and trans communities. We conducted research to benchmark national and international best practices, collaborated with the university of Pennsylvania to develop a foundational declaration of workplace equality, and engaged in community outreach through surveys and events to inform our initiatives. Additionally, we identified content for 10 learning modules to improve employer inclusivity and formed a diverse working group to manage project deliverables. These activities have advanced our mission to promote lgbtq+ workplace inclusion and strengthened our leadership reole in this area. The womxn networking event was a successful first event that was hosted at as you are, a lesbian-owned establishment. The event had a presence from community nonprofit partners, government employees, small business owners, community members, and employees of companies large and small. The kickoff event was filled with enthusiasm, and it identified themes for future events and some locations. Additionally, partner/promotional sponsors were identified. Business directory: the participation in the business directory project has significantly increased this year. A higher number of members renewed their membership and updated their information prior to the print deadline. This resulted in a more comprehensive and up-to-date directory experience for the community. Additionally, we have formed partnerships with local brick and mortar establishments to display posters with qr codes linking to

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 61% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 35.9%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -45.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.02; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -61.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -150.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 35.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.