Colorado Black Caucus

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453839606
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3039999269
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$154,950
Expenses
$159,264
Assets
$81,589
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Annette Bowser (Executive Director)
  • Kezia McDonald (Executive Director (interim))

Highest reported compensation

  • Annette Bowser (Executive Director): $32,000 total reported compensation
  • Kezia McDonald (Executive Director (interim)): $11,250 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 Mission of the Colorado Black Caucus (Black Democratic Legislative Caucus) is to promote progressive policy towards the advancement of communities of color in the areas of education, economic development, health care, housing, public safety, social justice, and voting rights.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Mission of the Black Democratic Legislative Caucus (CO Black Caucus) is to promote progressive policy towards the advancement of communities of color in the areas of education, economic development, health care, housing, public safety, social justice, and voting rights. Fiscal Sponsorship Program - The organization provided fiscal sponsorship for Project Elevate via The Highland Project Inc., a 501 c3 organization supporting the rest and restoration of Black female elected leaders. We received $100,000 in restricted contributions for the project and expended all of it on on the project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $134K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.