Northwest Education Loan Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911068278
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6087332500
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Financial Institutions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,172,642
Expenses
$10,071,366
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard D George 23 (Chair/Pres/CEO/Treas)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard D George 23 (Chair/Pres/CEO/Treas): $889,330 total reported compensation
  • Jacqueline Fairbairn 3 (VP - Policy / Regl Compliance): $323,508 total reported compensation
  • Beth Erickson 3 (VP - Repayment Solutions): $313,052 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Nela's mission is to enhance post-secondary education preparedness, access and success by providing and supporting financial and other valued services.

What it reported doing in 2018

NELA guarantees student loans and provides a full-range of services. One aspect of the full-range guaranty services is to provide collection assistance to lenders for delinquent loans. This includes contacting the borrower to attempt to restore the loan to a current status through various options. This contact also involves educating and/or counseling borrowers. In addition, NELA provides direct support of personal financial management education, financial aid awareness and college access initiatives, and guidance and counsel on consolidation loans and loan rehabilitation under the Federal Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $889K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.