Livelihood Nw

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825342189
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5039908255
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,729,286
Expenses
$1,517,830
Assets
$1,165,674
Liabilities
$152,222

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LARA DAMON (EXECUTIVE DI): $160,454 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 foster business sustainability and growth for entrepreneurs to build thriving local communities. Livelihood nw provides high-quality business development support services to promote lifelong learning, empowerment, and positive economic impact.

What it reported doing in 2024

Livelihood nw provides free and low cost professional business support services throughout Oregon and sw Washington. We offer a continuum of support to businesses in all industries, at all stages from pre-startup to scaling and growth. Our services are open to all small businesses throughout Oregon and sw Washington. Over the past year, livelihood nw provided business support to more than 725 entrepreneurs, many of whom are economically disadvantaged and/or from marginalized communities. Services are available in both english and spanish and include one-on-one in-depth technical assistance, business advising, workshops, trainings, cohort learning, bookkeeping setup & training, resource navigation and referrals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 41.2%; rating input score 41; 28th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.2%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.2% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.