Project 48 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834515483
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5039360851
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Foster Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,132,240
Expenses
$1,133,059
Assets
$473,571
Liabilities
$3,992

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID THIEBES (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • BRANDY MEMORY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDY MEMORY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,332 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Project 48 supports youth experiencing foster care by providing essential items and life skills during vulnerable and traumatic transitions. We meet immediate basic needs while also building confidence, stability, and long-term pathways to independence through consistent support and community connection.

What it reported doing in 2025

Essential bag programthe essential bag program provides custom-packed bags of new, high-quality clothing and hygiene items to youth experiencing foster care during times of transition, including entry into care, placement changes, and exits from the system. Each bag is tailored to the individual youth's size, preferences, and needs, and is delivered within 48 hours of request to ensure timely support during critical moments.(continuted on schedule o)in 2025, the organization fulfilled 447 essential bag orders, serving youth ages 7-23 across multnomah, Washington, and clackamas counties. These bags supported youth during first placements (41.7%), placement moves (23.8%), and exits from care (12.1%) as well as 22.4% "other" - life skills program participants and special cases helping meet immediate basic needs while also promoting confidence, dignity, and a sense of belonging during traumatic transitions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 53rd 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 44.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 42.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 50.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $928K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.