Relational Life Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 850848453
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 4806197130
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Counseling, Support Groups
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $341,388
- Expenses
- $431,927
- Assets
- $147,986
- Liabilities
- $1,972
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Amber Cordoba (Executive Director)
- Sarah Oswald (Former Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Sarah Oswald (Former Executive Director): $111,608 total reported compensation
- Amber Cordoba (Executive Director): $53,333 total reported compensation
- Jeffrey Averick (Treasurer): $20,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ending the chronic epidemic of loneliness through Relational Life Therapy (RLT), fostering community, and transforming relationships.
What it reported doing in 2025
RLT Therapy - provided 24 individuals and couples with three sessions each of sliding-scale therapy with a practitioner-in-training for a total of 72 sessions allowing access to therapy they would not have been able to afford.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 40
- Transparency & Controls: 59
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 14
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 37.9%; rating input score 38
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 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: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -26.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 42.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 58.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48% of revenue deployed · 37.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $164K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.