Alliance for Higher Education in Prison

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
923435116
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7203667037
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,930,747
Expenses
$2,141,225
Assets
$1,609,673
Liabilities
$141,977

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAVED PRICE (EXECUTIVE DI): $94,446 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We support the expansion of quality higher education in prison, empower students while in prison and after release, and shape public discussion about education and incarceration.

What it reported doing in 2024

Over the last fiscal year, the alliance for higher education in prison (ahep) strengthened its role as the national backbone organization for the higher education in prison (hep) field. Ahep convened the national conference on higher education in prison (nchep), hosting approximately 950 participants in new orleans, and facilitated virtual convenings and webinars that supported communities of practice for educators, administrators, researchers, and formerly incarcerated leaders. The alliance facilitated a year-long national cohort of 14 prison education programs focused on advancing equitable work-based learning opportunities for incarcerated students, providing structured peer learning, technical assistance, and applied guidance. --- continued on schedule o ---

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 36th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 164% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 184% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 56.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 72.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.