Nusenda Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471284916
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Albuquerque, NM, USA
Phone
5058892528
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,565,802
Expenses
$854,495
Assets
$3,339,333
Liabilities
$46,484

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA KELLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHAIR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NIKKI BUNCH (DIRECTOR): $295,684 total reported compensation
  • SARA KELLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHAIR): $225,065 total reported compensation
  • SARAH LOPEZ (SECRETARY): $195,874 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 corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes defined for qualifying exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. These charitable and educational activities support or create programs aimed at promoting and enhancing effective philanthropic partnerships focused on financial literacy, capability and improvement, asset building initiatives, and the creation and implementation of products and services to support lower income and impoverished individuals and communities; and to develop civic, cultural, health, education, economic development and diversification initiatives to enhance the general well-being of residents in New Mexico.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation receives funds generated by the nusenda credit union community rewards program (community rewards), which is a contribution driven by member debit card transactions. Members have the opportunity to direct the contributions towards investments in five focus areas with specific communities: education, healthcare, the arts, wildlife & environment, and community services & support. These funds are awarded to eligible charitable entities through the foundation. The foundation also receives funds generated by nusenda credit union's escheated property process, which is derived from abandoned funds in member accounts. Per the nusenda credit union by-laws, these funds may be donated to the nusenda foundation and are to be awarded to eligible charitable entities through the nusenda foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 39
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 88.3%; rating input score 88; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 11.1%; rating input score 11; 9th 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: 45.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.91; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.2% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $832K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $296K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 57 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 58 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 11/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.