The Moonridge Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 611747676
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV, USA
- Phone
- 7025707693
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $661,446
- Expenses
- $705,306
- Assets
- $1,142,590
- Liabilities
- $166,675
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JULIE MURRAY (PRESIDENT/CH)
Highest reported compensation
- TIFFANY TWOHIG (EXECUTIVE DI): $30,812 total reported compensation
- PUNAM MATHUR (BOARD MEMBER): $6,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote and enhance philanthropy, volunteerism, and community involvement.
What it reported doing in 2025
Miscellaneous grants to non-profit organizations aligned with the mission of the moonridge foundation. As an emergency response to the healthcare and economic crisis created by the novel coronavirus, the moonridge foundation launced a new program called delivering with dignity in 2020. Through partnerships with locally-owned restaurants, leading nonprofit agencies, and private corporations, the program works to ensure the most vulnerable in our community have access to delicious prepared meals, delivered safely to doorsteps by volunteers, while preserving job security for restaurant kitchens. Conducted summits to share best practices to increase philanthropy and volunteerism, to track programs and outcomes, and share ideas to achieve agreater social impact in giving. Conducted events to create a culture of greater cohesion among non-profit, governmental, and academic leaders that represent all five social sectors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 88
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 90.8%; rating input score 91; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $590K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $31K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.