Social Venture Partners Portland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931310734
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032220114
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$990,523
Expenses
$883,625
Assets
$1,370,152
Liabilities
$37,827

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAUREN JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BOB TATE (PRESIDENT (THROUGH 06/2025))
  • ROB ASLETT (PRESIDENT (FROM 06/2025))

Highest reported compensation

  • LAUREN JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,267 total reported compensation
  • CAROLINA CASTANEDA DEL RIO (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY IMPACT): $128,959 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Svp contributes financial resources, professional expertise, and connections to mission-driven organizations in order to strengthen their operations, grow their capacity, and expand their impact in our community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The primary mission of svp portland is to provide capacity-building support to the community grantees we call community partners. In 2025, the partnership of 86 individuals invested $444,652 in cash grants and 4,357 hours (a non-cash value of $1,089,250) and together, these represent a value of $72,500 of community investments into a portfolio of 14 community organizations and collaborative projects that are focused on ensuring that all children regardless of race, ethnicity, wealth, religion, gender, or zip code have access to high-quality, culturally-relevant early learning experiences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.5%; rating input score 73; 37th 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 63.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $558K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.