One Big Tent of Portage County
Legal name: One Big Tent
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 863793354
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Stevens Point, WI, US
- Phone
- 7153106790
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Interfaith Coalitions
- Affiliation
- Interfaith
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $442,692
- Expenses
- $403,011
- Assets
- $59,539
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PR JANE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
- CYNTHIA ROYER (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- PR JANE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
- CYNTHIA ROYER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JUDI CUMLEY (TREASURER)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
One Big Tent of Portage County is a partnership of diverse, faith-based organizations working with community agencies to promote human dignity by alleviating poverty and isolation and providing ready access to resources; they assign a companion to help people access community and faith-community resources and navigate “the system.”
What it reported doing in 2025
One big tent misc assistance included utilities including propane, electricity, gas, utility penalty fees and water fees, license and driver registration fees, court fees, appliances and emergency hotel stays. Provided up to $500 assistance to 43 family units. Partnering togethering contributions collected and remitted.
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 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 98%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 77.7%; rating input score 78; 50th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: 9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 120.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 100% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 98% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $395K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.