Ena Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363746084
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
Phone
8474604000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$903,988
Expenses
$715,721
Assets
$5,580,956
Liabilities
$108,350

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS DELLINGER MBA BSN RN FAEN (ENA PRESIDENT)
  • TERRY FOSTER MSN RN CEN CPEN CCR (IMMEDIATE PAST ENA PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY MACRAE MS (ENA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY MACRAE MS (ENA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $651,952 total reported compensation
  • TERRENCE D SYKES MBA (CHIEF GROWTH OFFICER): $362,328 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS DELLINGER MBA BSN RN FAEN (ENA PRESIDENT): $65,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The emergency nurses association foundation's mission is to empower emergency nurses by providing resources through academic scholarships, research grants and educational opportunities for the people who care for us when we need it most.

What it reported doing in 2024

The 2024 enaf research grant, in the amount of $30,000, was awarded to k. Jane muir, phd, rn, of Pennsylvania, for her work, "evaluating the effects of nurse staffing and hospital crowding on patient outcomes and workplace violence."an additional $30,000 research grant was awarded to alison camarda, msn, rn, cen, cpen, cpd-bc, of Vermont, for the project, "emergency nurses' secondary traumatic stress and the contribution of the work environment: a mixed-methods exploration." the $6,000 enaf/sigma research grant was awarded to christien van der linden, phd, msce, msanp, rn, cen, of holland, for her work on nurse workload measurement.the foundation supported more than 40 nurses impacted by hurricane helene and hurricane milton with approximately $25,500 in emergency relief grants.some grants were awarded in 2024 but were not distributed until 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.8; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.3% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $596K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $652K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.