1999 Collective

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992141522
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8018760029
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,079,070
Expenses
$492,342
Assets
$600,118
Liabilities
$7,722

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Alexa Hudson Co- (Executive Dir.): $46,020 total reported compensation
  • Natalie Clark Co- (Executive Dir.): $40,662 total reported compensation
  • Kalhan Sparks - Former (Director): $10,769 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 1999 Collective is a Utah-based community, driven by lived expertise, who works to ensure that those with experience in foster care have every opportunity and capability to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

Life After Care - training program: 1999 Collective delivered 21 Life After Care training sessions, benefiting over 166 young adults transitioning out of foster care. These workshops, designed by foster care alumni, covered essential topics critical to leaving foster care in Utah, such as education funding, employment readiness, and life skills. The program aims to equip participants with the knowledge and resources necessary for a successful transition to adulthood.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.1%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 87.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 137.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 189.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.1% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $433K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.