Colorado Enterprise Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840837398
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038600242
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,460,528
Expenses
$11,606,580
Assets
$80,686,947
Liabilities
$34,111,427

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CECILIA PRINSTER (PRESIDENT AN)

Highest reported compensation

  • CECILIA PRINSTER (PRESIDENT AN): $400,010 total reported compensation
  • NIM PATEL (COO): $323,226 total reported compensation
  • LUKE ANDERSON (CFO): $220,332 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To accelerate community prosperity by financing and supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Small business lending - cef aggregates and leverages capital to spur investment and build capacity for those who lack access to conventional financing and entrepreneurial networks, specifically targeting underserved small business owners. Cef provides financing options when banks cannot lend or cannot lend enough, specializing in loans up to 1,000,000 for new and existing small businesses and community enterprises throughout Colorado. Cef catalyzes business ownership and job creation by offering flexible financing products, personalized client support, one-on-one business coaching, and access to additional resources for entrepreneurs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 76.3%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.9%; rating input score 87; 19th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 6.9%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.95; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 76.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $210K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 32 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 38 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.