Nami Lane County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930821866
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Springfield, OR, USA
Phone
5413437688
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,403
Expenses
$239,954
Assets
$1,144,942
Liabilities
$5,755

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAINE MABRAY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER MACLEAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $115,839 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To improve the quality of life for individuals living with mental health conditions and their families, friends and loved ones residing in lane county, Oregon through support, education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

A.sie - the support-information education program provides individuals and families with mutual support skills, information on community resources, and mental health education. In 2025, we provided classes and support group meetings attended 891 times by people seeking formal education or personal support. We also responded to 918 visits from people requesting specific information. B.socialization program - provides activities for individuals living with a mental health condition and/or their families to reduce isolation and enhance discussion with peers and within and between families with ill members. In 2025, there were approximately 1,700 contacts in these activities. C.client assistance program - provides basic needs assistance to individuals that have a mental health condition by providing free clothing, personal hygiene items, and food. 1,013 individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.3%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 34.5%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: 41.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.77; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.3% of revenue deployed · 34.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $83K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $116K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.