Good Neighbor Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464552974
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hillsboro, OR, USA
Phone
5033179852
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,127
Expenses
$218,241
Assets
$480,367
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jill Hartzell (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Denise NKemontoh (Board Member): $7,974 total reported compensation
  • Liza Unger (Board Member): $7,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Using the Samaritan model we seek to help those unable to help themselves offer education to those needing skills to provide for themselves and encourage all to notice their neighbor and lend a hand whether it be socially physically financially spiritually or emotionally.

What it reported doing in 2025

Zambia-The organization disbursed salaries to 15 educators and support staff at a school. Additionally it allocated resources for the construction of a second school building including materials like cement bricks and labor. The nonprofit sponsored students at various educational levels including support for those attending other schools and universities. Furthermore it organized and executed youth-focused events throughout the year and provided daily meals for all students and personnel five days a week. The organization also developed and supplied educational curriculum for five local churches and financed the drilling of two boreholes in 2025 to enhance community health and well-being. Moreover it initiated a goat program for pastors enabling them to breed and distribute offspring to benefit the wider community. The organization conducted famine relief efforts through food distribution in the spring and supported a youth gathering with financial assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 45th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.2; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $193K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.