Vancouver Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 980055968
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2020
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020
- Location
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Phone
- 604-688-2204
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $88,948,385
- Expenses
- $99,380,234
- Assets
- $1,114,568,560
- Liabilities
- $26,075,456
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kevin McCort (President CEO)
- Craig Hikida (Vice President Donor Services)
- Emily Thorner (Vice President Finance Technology)
- Eugene Lee (Vice President Investments)
- Dara Parker (Vice President Grants and Community Initiatives)
- William Hallett (Vice President Finance Operations)
Highest reported compensation
- Kevin McCort (President CEO): $288,756 total reported compensation
- Craig Hikida (Vice President Donor Services): $181,336 total reported compensation
- Emily Thorner (Vice President Finance Technology): $168,963 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To bring together the wisdom and generosity of community to improve the lives of people living in British Columbia in meaningful and lasting ways.
What it reported doing in 2020
Community Response Initiative - In response to the COVID-19 pandemic Vancouver Foundation deployed the Community Response Fund to provide essential relief to charities in BC that provide health and social services or arts culture and community benefits that had been impacted by COVID-19 and its economic consequences. This was a cross-sector partnership with other charities not-for-profit organizations corporations and government.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
- Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $24.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 85.1%; rating input score 85; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -11.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.22; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $86M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $289K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
- Consistency: 48 of 49 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.