Home Performance Guild of Oregon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843849252
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5037379159
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Improvement and Repairs

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,082
Expenses
$121,576
Assets
$104,320
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIELLE SWOPE (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DIRK LARSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DIRK LARSON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MADELINE TURNOCK (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $30,020 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLE SWOPE (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $25,638 total reported compensation
  • DIRK LARSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $13,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help home performance professionals build a more climate resilient and economically equitable Oregon.

What it reported doing in 2024

Established board, organizing monthly membership meetings, ana grant applicationsmembership development support: a key component of the home performance guild's financial success is throught the enrollment of contractors into the organization. The guild will collect membership dues to fund outreach, programming, and overall organizational administrative costs.energy trust is providing funding for up to 50 members at the membership fee of $500 each. This will lower the barrier for contractors to join the guild and support their growth. This funding is only available for one year of membership and requires contractors to be energy trust trade allies or enroll in our network helping us to expand and grow contractors within our trade ally network. Contractors must also perform work that aligns with energy trust's incentives and offerings (i.e. Commercial and residential window installers).deliverables: hpg is required to provide a list of contractors added to their membership in their monthly invoice and then will be paid per contractor up to the budget threshold.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 41.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 99.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 141.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.2% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.