Equitable Facilities Fund
Legal name: Equitable Facilities Fund Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822351889
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, New York, USA
- Phone
- 5625333043
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $134,913,992
- Expenses
- $51,702,521
- Assets
- $1,925,279,588
- Liabilities
- $1,448,793,997
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANAND KESAVAN (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ANAND KESAVAN (CEO): $613,477 total reported compensation
- MIKE MCGREGOR (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $497,084 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE GETZ (CHIEF CREDIT OFFICER): $298,604 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Eff is a nonprofit social impact fund that believes all children deserve a quality education. We empower high-performing public charter schools with equitable access to low-cost, long-term financing by innovatively combining mission-related investments and capital markets.
What it reported doing in 2024
The equitable facilities fund leverages donations and other philanthropic monies it receives and holds to enable charter schools to borrow more cheaply and effectively. Designing, implementing and maintaining this new source of capital for charter school facilities will ultimately lead to improved public education for children.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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
SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 32.5%; rating input score 32
- Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $133.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 61.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 37.24; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.75; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 28.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 32.5% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $613K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $627K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.