The Nita Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300212513
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Louisville, CO, USA
Phone
3039536800
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$975,694
Expenses
$750,545
Assets
$13,356,872
Liabilities
$868,124

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL GINSBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • WENDY MCCORMACK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WENDY MCCORMACK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $298,853 total reported compensation
  • CASSIE FAHRNEY (ASSOCIATE ED, FINANCE): $208,955 total reported compensation
  • HON MARK DRUMMOND (TRUSTEE): $50,394 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The nita foundation, a qualified charity, is dedicated to supporting activities for the benefit of and to carry out the charitable and educational purposes of the national institute for trial advocacy continued on schedule o(nita) which is also a qualified charity. In the furtherance of its mission, the nita foundation shall promote and support activities aimed at improving and assisting the administration of justice in the courts of the united states and other countries through education and training of lawyers, professors of law, and law students. In particular, the nita foundation helps further the mission of the national institute for trial advocacy (nita) through the foundation's scholarship program and support of public service programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program services: the nita foundation supports a variety of public service programs that are offered free or for a reduced fee to lawyers working in the following areas; child advocacy, death penalty defense, tribal advocacy, legal services, and international rule of law. The foundation provided a number of scholarhips for tuition assistance to attorneys working in the area of child advocacy as well as to those attorneys working in developing nations to advance the rule of law. In addition, books are donated to need-based lawyers and organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $67.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.8; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.1% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $736K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $299K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.