GILA Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810851813
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Silver City, NM, USA
Phone
5759566095
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,100,494
Expenses
$980,612
Assets
$1,142,744
Liabilities
$55,794

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jamie Sechrist (Executive Dir.): $80,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Gila Community Foundation builds a stronger, more resilient community by fostering sustainable philanthropic growth.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community Outreach, Education, and Philanthropic Development. The Gila Community Foundation conducted outreach and educational activities to promote philanthropy, nonprofit development, and community collaboration throughout Southwestern New Mexico. Activities included public presentations, participation in community meetings, donor education events, and partnership development with local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. Outreach efforts included presentations to civic groups, participation in regional economic and community development meetings, and collaboration with local chambers of commerce and community initiatives. These activities support the Foundations mission by increasing awareness of charitable giving opportunities, strengthening nonprofit partnerships, and expanding resources available to the community. Approximately 150 individuals were reached through outreach and educational activities during the year. Total program expenses were $5,415.20.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $864K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.