Oregon Public Purchasing Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931007304
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5037981907
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$119,483
Expenses
$63,645
Assets
$185,835
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN NELSON (PRESIDENT)
  • EMILLIE SCHULHOFF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KALISKA KING (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEPHEN NELSON (PRESIDENT)
  • EMILLIE SCHULHOFF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTA ULM (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Oregon public purchasing association (oppa) seeks to benefit the public procurement profession and increase its members' value to their employers through education, networking, outreach and established programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Oppa conducts regular meetings and conferences for its members, which are structured to meet the ever changing needs of public purchasing professionals. The organization estimates approximately 300 volunteer hours contributed to their programming during the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.7%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 91

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.7%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.92; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.7% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.