Wordpress Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205498932
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2010
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4152751240
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,153
Expenses
$119,946
Assets
$826,820
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHELE CHIAVACCI FARLEY (DIRECTOR)
  • MARK GHOSH (DIRECTOR)
  • MATT MULLENWEG (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects we support. People and businesses come and go, so it is important to ensure that the source code for these projects will survive beyond the current contributor base, that we may create a stable platform for web publishing for generations to come.

What it reported doing in 2024

Doaction charity hackathons are community-organized events that are focused on using wordpress to give deserving charitable organizations their own online presence. Each doaction event includes participants from the local wordpress community coming together to build brand new websites for a number of local charitable organizations in one day. The goal of doaction is to support these charitable organizations by giving them a fresh and dynamic online presence. This enables them to get on with the work they already do well without basic website management getting in the way of their productivity. 2024 was an active year with 8 doaction events held in the following locales port harcourt, nigeria ahmedabad, india mumbai, india bhopal, india pontevedra, spain, igualada, spain and cagliari, italy, and collaboratively online. Over 35 websites were created for deserving nonprofit organizations. Many of the organizations were recipients of in-kind hosting plans that will allow their website to grow and remain functional for many years to come.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -117.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.89; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -18.5% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 18 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.