Arrupe Corporate Work Study Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460508814
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3034557449
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,057,278
Expenses
$3,057,278
Assets
$572,206
Liabilities
$572,206

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD COOKINHAM (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL O'HAGAN (DIRECTOR): $238,809 total reported compensation
  • CHAD COOKINHAM (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT): $161,039 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The arrupe corporate work study program's purpose and mission is to enable students of arrupe jesuit high school to offset a substantial portion of their schooling costs by participating in a work study program with local businesses whereby students grow in (schedule o) self-confidence, responsibility, human relations skills and teamwork. Participation in this program motivates students academically while in high school and in their direction toward post-secondary education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Arrupe corporate work study program allowed 407 economically disadvantaged high school students to pursue their education by participating in work/study programs with 105 local businesses while attending arrupe jesuit high school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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 - 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 98.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $239K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.