Lever Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464371412
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024913356
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,430
Expenses
$79,563
Assets
$26,103
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • NATHANIEL PEARLMAN (FOUNDER)
  • CONNIE K N CHANG (BOARD CHAIR & TREASURER)
  • MATT CLYNE (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The lever fund was formed with the mission to raise more local poverty-fighting dollars and to spend them in a smarter, data-driven way.the lever fund model is inspired by successful organizations such as the robin hood foundation (New York city, ny), a better chicago (chicago, il), and tipping point (san francisco, ca). Like these innovative nonprofit funders, the lever fund applies sound metrics, emphasizes genuine impact, and is committed to producing solid returns on investment with the goal of moving people from poverty to opportunity--while keeping investors informed every step of the way.

What it reported doing in 2023

Raise local poverty-fighting dollars and make investments/grants in high-performance, high-impact nonprofits in northern Virginia, the district, and Maryland.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.5%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 32.6%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.5% of revenue deployed · 32.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.