Arizona Community Colleges

Legal name: Arizona Community College Coordinating Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463312991
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6022940202
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Coalitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$268,582
Expenses
$516,743
Assets
$71,576
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL CORR (DIRECTOR)
  • JACKIE ELLIOTT (DIRECTOR)
  • JD ROTTWEILER (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Arizona Association of Community College Trustees is to provide collaboration among Arizona’s community colleges governing boards and with the Arizona Community College Coordinating Council.

What it reported doing in 2024

The membership meets monthly to discuss and share information regarding specific challenges and opportunities within the Arizona community college system, including but not limited to: 1) partnerships between community colleges; 2) resource and curriculum sharing opportunities to reduce the costs of providing quality educational offerings throughout the state; 3) pursue grant opportunities to enhance community colleges offerings and services to students; 4) economic and industry employment forecasts to ensure alignment of degree and certificate offerings with industry needs; 5) partnership and partnership opportunities with k-12 schools and other state/private post secondary institutions; 6) experiences and best practices in higher education and community colleges; 7) student outcome data.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -92.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 30.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $155K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $152K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.