Adams 14 Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841360546
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Commerce City, CO, USA
Phone
7202042905
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$483,451
Expenses
$378,958
Assets
$1,333,257
Liabilities
$26,412

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI YOUNG (Executive Director)
  • JOSH GOLD (Executive Director)
  • RYAN BLAKE (President)
  • JANELL SUELTZ (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI YOUNG (Executive Director): $71,905 total reported compensation
  • JOSH GOLD (Executive Director): $28,125 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To develop tomorrow's talent through teacher grants, student scholarships, and leadership programs in the Adams 14 community

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships: only 22% of students who attend Adams County District 14 schools access post-secondary educational opportunities. The Adams 14 Education Foundation has awarded over $1.8m in scholarships to graduating seniors to attend community colleges, 4-year colleges and universities. More importantly, the Foundation has mentored and ensured that 77% of scholarship recipients remain on track and successfully complete their post-secondary dreams. Over 150 scholarships have been awarded over the last 10 years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 71% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 57.8%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.1%; rating input score 87; 51st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.6%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.52; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 57.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $142K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.