Womens Foundation of Oregon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930386905
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
9712301294
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$923,656
Expenses
$1,136,956
Assets
$3,641,229
Liabilities
$81,778

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LIBRA FORDE (Executive Dir.): $233,309 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE MARQUEZ PETERS (DIR OF ADV & DEV): $126,050 total reported compensation
  • KRISTEN FRALEY (DIR OF OPS & COMP): $114,867 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Women's foundation of Oregon supports communities, programs, and individuals that improve the lives and opportunities of women and girls. We do this through direct grants, research, and policy advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

In fiscal year 2024-25, the women's foundation of Oregon (wfo) significantly advanced its mission to promote gender equity and justice. Key accomplishments included:-grant distribution: wfo awarded over $320,000 in funds, supporting a wide range of community initiatives focused on empowering women and girls across Oregon. Immediate impact grants were strategically distributed, addressing urgent needs and fostering community resilience.-community engagement: wfo engaged with diverse communities throughout the state, with notable outreach efforts in rural Oregon. This included community visits, listening sessions, and partnerships aimed at amplifying local voices and addressing region-specific challenges.-impact reporting: wfo published its third comprehensive impact report in november 2025, showcasing data-driven insights into the foundation's impact and highlighting stories of change.-research and strategic planning: setting the groundwork for future research, the research committee has developed a one-pager and will begin community sessions in 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.5%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 40.3%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 73.4%; rating input score 73; 33rd 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.2; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.5% of revenue deployed · 40.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $458K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $233K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.