Second Nurture

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810898315
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Glastonbury, CT, USA
Phone
4152541141
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$380,391
Expenses
$380,945
Assets
$95,465
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Susan Silverman (Executive Director & Trustee)

Highest reported compensation

  • Susan Silverman (Executive Director & Trustee): $92,443 total reported compensation
  • Samara Hutman (Affiliate Director): $73,930 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Moran (COO): $46,850 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Second Nurture partners with Host Communities to provide belonging and connection for fostering, pre-adoptive and adoptive families through our monthly Cohort Meetings to address the foster care system, get direct answers to sometimes confusing processes, and find meaningful support. By creating these circles of compassion and support for foster families, they are held resilient and successful-and kids have the loving, growthful relationships and resources they need to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Affiliate cities): Completed the Second Nurture Handbook. Aligned Cohorts with the national vision and each other so that they operate under a common mission, brand, guidelines and standards. Maintained responsiveness to meet local needs in a way that is culturally appropriate and in sync with local laws and regulations. Improved well-being of our foster families. Retained a pool of volunteers at each Cohort site.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -32.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.2% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $218K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.