Stonewall Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133550688
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2124571341
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,686,247
Expenses
$2,873,870
Assets
$6,138,284
Liabilities
$1,623,690

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIRA PATEL (PRESIDENT (UNTIL 2025))
  • MELISSA MADZEL (PRESIDENT)
  • MEDINA (CO-VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELISA CRESPO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELISA CRESPO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $223,362 total reported compensation
  • LAUREN TODD (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $180,462 total reported compensation
  • GATTLIN MILLER (DIR. OF COMMUNICATION & PARTNERSHIPS): $130,196 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Partnering with donors and dynamic nonprofits, stonewall community foundation mobilizes resources to advance queer liberation. Stonewall's mission work includes organizational funding and capacity building, scholarships and microgrants, leadership development, and administration of donor-advised funds.

What it reported doing in 2025

Giving circles: a specialized program for donors who collectively contribute to a fund to then distribute grants to qualifying organizations and programs. Donors make monthly or annual contributions and then participate in collective decision-making on outgoing grants. Donors participating in giving circles convene for social engagements, volunteer opportunities to serve the community, and collaborative decision-making in philanthropy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 62%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90%; rating input score 90; 32nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.14; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 62% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 71 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.