Forth Mobility Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454726335
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5037248670
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,778,604
Expenses
$20,689,372
Assets
$4,482,891
Liabilities
$2,545,669

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATTI BEST (President)
  • LESLIE BEST (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF ALLEN (Executive Dir.): $197,586 total reported compensation
  • ELLEN DULLY (DEPUTY DIR.): $159,313 total reported compensation
  • JEANETTE SHAW (POLICY DIR.): $156,764 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to electrify transportation by bringing people together to create solutions that reduce pollution and barriers to access.

What it reported doing in 2024

Strengthen policy capacity the organization builds influence and bridges between equity, environmental, and multimodal organizations to promote transportation electrification at the national, state, and local levels. The organization works to build the foundation for public and private investment and to maximize the equitable impacts of those investments. During 2024, the organization continued work on a collaborative initiative aimed at advancing racial and environmental justice through equitable electric mobility and advocated for additional funding to retain oregons ev rebate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $87.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 41.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $17.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $541K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.