Run Fit

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263470036
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Albuquerque, NM, USA
Phone
5053144323
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$641,224
Expenses
$558,458
Assets
$379,529
Liabilities
$222,849

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Evan Pino (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Paulina Pino (Treasure/Secretary)
  • Stephen Pino (Director)
  • Evan Pino (Vice-President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

RunFit's mission is to provide opportunities for children and adults to engage in running at all levels as a means to a healthy, active and positive lifestyle. Our programs reach out forgotten young people in society; to give them a sense of believing in themselves. We strive to help them undesrtand that winning in life means trying your best, and never give up. RunFit develops awareness of a healthy lifestyle for the youth and their families in our community through running and healthy eating.

What it reported doing in 2025

We have broaden our exposure for the number . of children that participated in RunFIt with the increased emphasis in combating childhood obesity within the Bernalillo Public Schools and Albuquerque Public Schools. With the coordinated efforts of Albuquerque Public Schools Foundation and RunFit, we have offered many disadvantage youth the chance to participate in running and racing events they would otherwise not have access. Parents have elso come out to assist and have now become involved as volunteers. Increased affiliation with High Schools and Private Schools in order to support their running teams and clubs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.4%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 20%; rating input score 20
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 19%; rating input score 19; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 17.4% of revenue deployed · 20% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $112K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 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 17/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 19/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.