Most nonprofit leaders think of the Form 990 as a compliance chore: something the accountant files once a year, hopefully on time. But for anyone deciding whether to fund you, it’s the most complete public record of your organization that exists. Foundations read it. Donor-advised fund sponsors read it. Banks read it; Treasury’s October notice on charity abuse expects them to. And increasingly, software reads it first, summarizing your filing before a human ever opens your proposal.
That means your 990 makes a first impression whether or not you meant it to. Here’s what readers look at, in roughly the order they look.
1. Are you who you say you are, and in good standing?
The first pass is a status check: the legal name and EIN match what you use publicly, you’re listed as eligible for tax-deductible gifts (IRS Publication 78), and your filings are current. Organizations that miss three years of filings lose their exemption automatically. The IRS posted about 55,000 such revocations in the past year, and many of those groups didn’t realize it until a funder or bank told them.
Also check the basics on page one. In our analysis of about 360,000 full Form 990s filed for tax year 2023, roughly one in three left the website field blank. To a reviewer, a missing website can look like a missing organization. FinCEN lists “no website or a dated or generic website” among its red flags.
2. Does the 990 tell the same story as your website?
This is the check most organizations don’t know is happening. A careful reviewer, or a diligence tool, compares what you say about yourself with what you reported to the IRS:
- Programs. The programs on your website should map to the program descriptions in Part III. If you promote a flagship program the 990 barely mentions, or report large program spending that never appears on your site, expect a question.
- Leadership. Your website’s executive director and board should match the people in Part VII, allowing for timing. A new leader on the website and a predecessor still on the latest filing is normal during a transition, but explain it before someone has to ask.
- Reach and results. Impact claims (“serving 10,000 families”) should be believable against your budget and staffing.
- Funders. Supporters you name publicly should be consistent with the grants other funders report giving you.
3. How does the money work?
Next come the finances. Reviewers look at:
- Revenue mix: contributions and grants versus program service revenue, government funding and investment income, and how concentrated it is. Reliance on one funder isn’t disqualifying, but it is noticed.
- Trend: several years of revenue and expenses, not one. Growth, stability and dips all tell a story.
- Reserves: how many months of expenses you could cover. The median full 990 filer in 2023 held about 5.6 months of expenses in cash and savings, by our calculation.
- Program expense ratio: the share of spending on programs. The median for full 990 filers is about 87%.
A word on that last one: good reviewers no longer judge overhead in isolation. Underinvesting in staff, systems and finance is its own risk. Still, an unusual ratio for your cause and size will draw attention, so be ready to explain it with context rather than defend it.
4. How are you governed?
Part VI asks a series of yes-or-no governance questions. Funders read them as a quick test of how well an organization is run. Among full 990 filers for 2023:
These policies are cheap to adopt and a “no” is visible to everyone. If you’re answering “no,” adopting the policy and checking “yes” next year is one of the easiest credibility wins available. Reviewers also look at board size and independence, any reported diversion of assets, and transactions with insiders (Schedule L).
5. The schedules tell the rest
Depending on your activities, schedules add detail funders notice: Schedule I (grants you make), Schedule F (foreign activities), Schedule R (related organizations) and Schedule O, the free-text section where you can explain anything unusual. Schedule O is underused. A sentence explaining a one-time revenue spike, a leadership transition or a changed program saves a reviewer from guessing.
A pre-filing checklist
- Legal name, EIN, address and website are current and match your public materials.
- Part III program descriptions match the programs you actually promote, with real numbers where you can.
- Part VII leadership is current; explain any recent transition in Schedule O.
- Governance answers in Part VI are accurate, and you’ve adopted the policies you can (conflict of interest, whistleblower, document retention).
- The board has reviewed the return before filing.
- Anything unusual (a revenue swing, a big one-time gift, a restructuring) is explained in Schedule O.
- Your website shows the same story: programs, leadership, key funders and, ideally, your latest 990 and audit.
- You file on time, every year. Three missed years means automatic revocation.
You can’t control when a funder reads your filing, or what tool they use to do it. You can control what they find. Treat your 990 as a public profile, because to everyone deciding whether to fund you, that’s what it is.
See what funders see: Look up your organization on Givalgo Discover to check your IRS status, filings, peer benchmarks and how your public record reads to a grantmaker.
Open DiscoverMethodology and sources
- Governance, website and financial figures: Givalgo analysis of 359,633 Form 990 returns (not 990-EZ or 990-N) for tax year 2023. The website field counts as blank when empty or “N/A.” Program expense ratio = program service expenses ÷ total expenses. Months of cash is Givalgo’s operating-reserve measure: liquid assets relative to average monthly expenses. Medians are rounded.
- Revocations: IRS Automatic Revocation of Exemption List, postings in the 12 months to October 2026.
- FinCEN Notice FIN-2026-NTC2, Oct. 30, 2026. fincen.gov