Sopact is a technology based social enterprise committed to helping organizations measure impact by directly involving their stakeholders.
Copyright 2015-2026 © sopact. All rights reserved.
Pull the compliance signals from a 990-PF or audit fast — expenses, program-vs-admin split, restricted-fund use, governance notes, and auditor concerns, with figures quoted and gaps marked.
In short: To review a nonprofit's 990-PF before granting, pull the compliance facts fast: total expenses, the program-vs-admin split, restricted-fund use, governance notes, and any auditor concerns — quoting the figures and marking anything implied rather than stated. Sopact Sense grades each fact green, amber, or red so a program officer sees what's confirmed, what's referenced but unproven, and what needs the document before the money moves.
Start with the audit or 990-PF loaded as clean data with persistent contact IDs, so every figure traces back to a line in the filing. Point the assistant at the dataset and have it read your Decision Brief first — the decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, and evidence standard.
You are the Sopact Sense Assistant working over the DEMO-05 · Grant Applications dataset (clean data + persistent contact IDs). Load my Decision Brief (decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, evidence standard) first, then wait for my task.
The prompt names the facts and forces quoted figures. Paste this verbatim:
From [ORG]'s audit / 990-PF, extract total expenses, program-vs-admin split, restricted-fund use, governance notes, auditor concerns — quoting figures. Mark implied. Grade green/amber/red.
The prompt works because of five elements: the dataset it reads over, the compliance facts it must extract, the instruction to quote figures directly, the rule to mark implied when a fact isn't explicitly stated, and the call to grade green/amber/red so unconfirmed signals are visible.
Run it against the Foundation grant round demo:
Run on the Grant Applications dataset (DEMO-05) already loaded in Sopact Sense.
GRADE: green | expenses | program cited; amber | policy | referenced not attached; red | auditor | concerns unconfirmed
The green fact is program expenses, cited directly from the filing. The amber fact is a policy referenced in the document but not attached, so it can't be verified. The red fact is an auditor concern that's implied but unconfirmed — you need the management letter to clear or confirm it.
Take the weakest fact and resolve it with the single document that confirms it. Sense shows the before → after grade.
Take the lowest-graded element above and fix it using only what the program could realistically measure. Show the before → after grade and the single indicator/edit that moves it to green.
Turn the compliance scan into a report, then a link that opens with no login.
Create a 'missing & incomplete' report from this analysis in Sopact branding [or paste your website URL / brand guideline to apply your own]. List every element graded amber or red, what is missing, and the one input that fixes each. Lead with the decision this report informs.
Create a shareable link for this report and open it in a new tab.
Quote the figure, don't paraphrase. A compliance review lives on exact numbers. Require the quoted figure and its location so a reviewer can verify the program-vs-admin split rather than trust a summary.
Mark implied as amber. When a fact is suggested but not stated — a policy referenced, a concern hinted — grade it amber and name the document that would confirm it, rather than reading it as settled.
Auditor concerns are red until confirmed. Treat any hint of an auditor concern as red and request the management letter; never clear it on inference.
Separate restricted from unrestricted. Restricted-fund misuse is a distinct risk. Pull restricted-fund use as its own fact so it isn't buried in the total expenses line.
Request the management letter for [ORG] and re-grade the auditor-concerns fact once it confirms or clears the implied concern.
Pull the compliance facts that bear on the funding decision — total expenses, the program-vs-admin split, restricted-fund use, governance notes, and auditor concerns — and quote the figures directly from the filing. Mark anything implied but not stated as amber, and treat unconfirmed auditor concerns as red until the supporting document confirms or clears them.
A 990-PF is the annual return private foundations file with the IRS, and an audit is the equivalent assurance document for many nonprofits. For a funder they reveal how money is spent, whether restricted funds are used as intended, and whether auditors raised concerns — the signals that tell you a grantee can be trusted with the grant.
A review is weak when it paraphrases instead of quoting figures, treats referenced-but-unattached policies as proven, or clears auditor concerns on inference. The fix is to quote every figure, mark implied facts amber, and hold auditor concerns red until the management letter confirms them.
Open Sopact Sense, paste your program description, and put it to work.
Try in Sopact