Equitable Giving Circle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850874463
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
9715175017
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,702,273
Expenses
$1,255,023
Assets
$661,010
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alanna McCreary (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alanna McCreary (Executive Director): $170,000 total reported compensation
  • Lillian Green (Community Care Director): $170,000 total reported compensation
  • Tamar Green (CSA Director): $170,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Through radical, no-strings-attached giving, EGC disrupts systemic inequality by funding community-led projects, including sustainable food security programs, housing support, and wellness initiatives

What it reported doing in 2025

Income instability very often leads to food insecurity. Our approach to addressing this issue is two fold: Purchase CSA shares from Portland's BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) farming community. Gift CSA shares to BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) families experiencing food insecurity who are not currently being served by the social services networks. The second tier of our food justice programming is our weekly pop up pantry or free farmers market. We host this free weekly food event on Thursdays from 10-2pm at our work space: This is a weekly access point of fresh produce, high quality pantry and protein items and more for BIPOC Portlanders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.6%; rating input score 91; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $954K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 3 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.