Nema Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 274357830
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sarasota, FL, USA
- Phone
- 7067546884
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $30,496,474
- Expenses
- $28,964,351
- Assets
- $32,581,469
- Liabilities
- $4,648
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- BRYAN GREEN (DIRECTOR/PRE): $175,000 total reported compensation
- CHERYL GREEN (DIRECTOR/SEC): $54,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provisionbridge exists to provide an easy, tax-efficient way for individuals, families and organizations to give charitably to organizations that provide care for those in need. Difficult times, rising medical costs, natural disasters, and other problems have left more and more families in need of financial assistance and more families and organizations wanting to help. Recognizing these needs led a team of dedicated leaders in the nonprofit community to start provision bridge. In 2011, provisionbridge received its determination letter from the IRS as a 501-c3 organization, with the goal of helping more people give to meet the needs in their community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Nema foundation (provisionbridge)exists to support 501(c)(3) charitable organizations from donor advised funds, which enable donors to contribute assets and then recommend grants from the fund to charities that provide care for those in need. Provisionbridge personnel assess and qualify grantees; therefore, the costs associated with these activities are included in the program services component of expense.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 30th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 6 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.