CollectiveSun Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850723497
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
123-456-7890
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,999
Expenses
$31,458
Assets
$2,130,447
Liabilities
$2,146,479

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • LEE BARKEN (BOARD CHAIR)
  • VIVIENNE ESRIG (DIRECTOR)
  • JASON ANDERSON (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CollectiveSun Foundation engages values-aligned capital to solve social and environmental challenges, advancing climate-friendly projects with a diverse portfolio of financing solutions including grants, recoverable grants, loans, leases, and other tools that help bring capital to communities where the sun shines brightly, but the dollars often do not flow.

What it reported doing in 2025

The interfaith solar campaign (isc), a fiscally sponsored project of collectivesun foundation, worked diligently in 2025 to help advance solar projects for communities of faith. In 2025, isc also began an information sharing and collaboration effort with other local groups and organizations that are involved in assisting their churches in their solar journey. We convened these leaders who are involved in Utah, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas, Missouri, and new england states in an effort to work together to become a stronger voice. We currently meet monthly and provide information and support. Isc continues to build a movement of faith based communities who through their local organizing efforts can accelerate solar adoption, cost savings and community resilience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.8%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 38.5%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 67.72; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -32.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 74.2% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 37.8% of revenue deployed · 38.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.