Equality Federation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810670152
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
9293733370
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$334,497
Expenses
$759,640
Assets
$1,153,346
Liabilities
$11,923

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRAN HUTCHINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DAN YONKER (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)
  • MEL KING (VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRAN HUTCHINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $240,550 total reported compensation
  • DAN YONKER (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE): $154,903 total reported compensation
  • MEL KING (VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS): $152,921 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Equality federation is an advocacy accelerator rooted in social justice, building power in our network of state-based lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq+) advocacy organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Equality federation is an advocacy accelerator, rooted in social justice, building power in our network of 50+ state-based lgbtq+ advocacy organizations. Collectively, our state partner network mobilizes more than 2 million supporters across the country to advance equality and justice for lgbtq+ people in the communities they call home. Equality federation uses technology combined with our policy expertise to monitor important state legislation. In 2025, equality federation tracked lgbtq+-related legislation in the states so we could provide advocates on the ground with the strategy, organizing, messaging, communications, and policy resources they needed. During 2025, advocates successfully defeated or neutralized roughly 90% of the anti-lgbtq+ bills equality federation tracked.

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 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 65.4%; rating input score 65; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -127.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 70% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $532K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.