Elevated Lending Certified Development Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850400026
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Albuquerque, NM, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$698,654
Expenses
$742,910
Assets
$1,239,521
Liabilities
$372,783

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MAYLING ARMIJO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALAN C SHETTLESWORTH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MAYLING ARMIJO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,351 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist in the growth and development of small business concerns in the state of New Mexico

What it reported doing in 2024

Sba 504 loan program - the objective of the sba 504 loan program is to achieve community economic development through job creation and retention by providing long-term, low down payment, reasonably priced, fixed assets financing to expand small and medium sized businesses. Elcdc markets sba loan programs, screens projects for program applicability, packages loan proposals, works with private lenders to secure commitments, coordinates the sale of sba guaranteed debentures for 504 loans, and services approved 504 loans. Elcdc serviced loans with funded amounts totaling approximately $120,000,000 at september 30, 2025, with maturities ranging from 2025 to 2050. The organization receives .625%, per annum, of principal outstanding as a loan-servicing fee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.8%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.8% of revenue deployed · 67.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $504K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.