Colorado Auto Theft Investigators Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841147622
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Wheatridge, CO, USA
Phone
3032352972
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$405,448
Expenses
$418,099
Assets
$33,312
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TREVOR HETTINGER (President)
  • ERIK VELEZ (Vice President)
  • THEO CARACOSTAS (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • TREVOR HETTINGER (President): $5,790 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 Colorado auto theft investigators association (cata) is dedicated to the prevention and investigation of motor vehicle thefts and related crimes in Colorado and the rocky mountain region and does so by investigative training and promotiing interagency communication

What it reported doing in 2024

Cati spent funds to enhance communication for its members and the public. Cati has maintained a website for public information and crime tips. Also, law enforcement and private sector members can use the website to contact other investigative resources to facilitate both networking and teamwork and to enhance the success of criminal investigations. The website also provides a source of information regarding quarterly news of interest to investigators, monthly meeting reports and training announcements. There were 6,461 page views and 2,926 unique visits and a cost to maintain the website of $1,053 during the fiscal year. Cati also held monthly meetings during the year for members to address organizational business, to announce training information, to share criminal intelligence, to address member issues and to recognize member achievements. The meetings were available both in person and online via zoom with an average of 40 members in attendence per meeting during the fiscal year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 83% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92%; rating input score 92; 53rd 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: -3.1%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $357K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.