Partnership for Transparency Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522262577
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2406508445
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$643,933
Expenses
$603,691
Assets
$753,412
Liabilities
$35,025

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WAYNE NISSLY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WAYNE NISSLY (PRESIDENT): $126,000 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD HOLLOWAY (BOARD DIRECTOR): $6,600 total reported compensation
  • TJAARDA STORM VAN LEEUWEN (TREASURER): $3,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance innovative citizen-led approaches to improve governance, increase transparency, promote the rule of law and reduce corruption in developing and emerging countries.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ptf advances its mission by widely sharing its knowledge gleaned through its work. Ptf achieves its mission by supporting local civil society organizations (csos) through mobilizing and granting funds, providing technical advice, and disseminating knowledge, as well as advocating for civil society engagement and demanding integrity in the public and private sectors. Ptf is managed by a small professional staff assisted by volunteer advisers. To implement its activities and donor-funded projects, ptf relies on a network of expert advisers (mostly former staff of multi- and bilateral organizations) to work with civil society organizations (cso) partners and its regional partners to provide technical assistance, knowledge and learning and strategic advice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.9%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 48.6%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 52nd 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.9% of revenue deployed · 48.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $293K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 46/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.