Washington Progress Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262868934
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2065698056
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,993,116
- Expenses
- $2,241,226
- Assets
- $2,210,237
- Liabilities
- $885,057
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dionne Foster (Executive Director)
- Vu Le (Vice President)
- Brooke Williams (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dionne Foster (Executive Director): $215,942 total reported compensation
- Jessica Jones (Deputy Director): $154,076 total reported compensation
- Lisa Pubigee (Operations Manager): $132,573 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Washington Progress Fund is building a permanent and powerful social change movement in Washington state supported by a network of committed donors. WPF envisions a Washington state where government serves the public interest and we all benefit from a fair and sustainable economy.
What it reported doing in 2024
Grantmaking - We provide grants to organizations in the social change community in the following core strategy areas planning, collaboration, and organizational development leadership development organizing and civic engagement policy development messaging and communications and building a healthy democracy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.6%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $82.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -12.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 94.6% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $216K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 18 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.