Queer Power Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824163307
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2063956658
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$663,251
Expenses
$498,382
Assets
$287,780
Liabilities
$232

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Taylor Farley (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Taylor Farley (Executive Director): $102,124 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Queer Power Alliance is rooted in the LGBTQIA+ community and in solidarity with other marginalized communities. We strive for equity by disrupting systems of oppression holding back LGBTQIA+ communities through advocating, educating, organizing, and building grassroots leadership for economic, housing, racial justice, and LGBTQIA+ liberation.

What it reported doing in 2025

ADVOCACY PROGRAMS: We build collective power, so LGBTQIA+ communities can shape the policies that impact their lives. Through civic education, advocacy, and leadership development, we work to expand economic opportunity, strengthen protections, and direct resources where they are most needed. Our community data work is grounded in lived experience and shaped by, for, and with LGBTQIA+ communities. Through community-designed research and participatory analysis, we gather information that reflects real conditions and supports advocacy, policy change, and equitable resource allocation. Our community data work is grounded in lived experience and shaped by, for, and with LGBTQIA+ communities. Through community-designed research and participatory analysis, we gather information that reflects real conditions and supports advocacy, policy change, and equitable resource allocation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 62% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.2%; rating input score 85; 40th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 24.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.8% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $410K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.