The Donor Alliance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841242267
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033294747
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,006
Expenses
$527,179
Assets
$2,590,282
Liabilities
$141,521

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jennifer Moe (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jennifer Moe (Executive Director): $212,075 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 Foundation was created in December 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) and re-established in August 2017, to operate exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes. The Foundation is a supporting organization to Donor Alliance, Inc., the federally designated nonprofit tax exempt organization that facilitates organ and tissue donation in Colorado and most of Wyoming. Donor Alliance Inc. invests significantly in public education and research in Colorado and Wyoming and the foundation will build upon those efforts through grantmaking to in-need populations across Colorado and Wyoming.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Donor Alliance Foundation provides funding for grief assistance and compassion support for donor families and others in need through nonprofit community health serving organizations, family assistance and other nonprofit organizations doing work with donation and transplantation. It will meet the needs of people or families requiring assistance, who are waiting for a transplant through food vouchers, housing and medication assistance, etc. and the needs of people or families requiring assistance post-transplant. It aims to meet the needs of living donors and potential living donors through food vouchers, housing assistance, etc. and provide funding to social workers to support people or families requiring assistance with housing, medication, food, etc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.1%; rating input score 91; 54th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,185.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.91; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $406K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.