Colorado Plateau Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830959411
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Phone
5205486337
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,529,958
Expenses
$2,160,133
Assets
$6,499,608
Liabilities
$249,680

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES ENOTE (CEO)
  • ANGELA GONZALES (BOARD PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES ENOTE (CEO): $150,081 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See attached

What it reported doing in 2024

The Colorado plateau foundation believes that grantmaking is more than distributing funds: it is about actively participating in and helping to build a network and community. Cpf provides networking and capacity building support and resources to our partners, including through our unique learning journey site visit approach, which looks at capacity over time and our annual learning community conference which connects native organizations with workshops, resources and each other. Cpf is committed to being an educator and a thought leader within the nonprofit space and for the public. A significant component of cpfs work as an organization includes outreach and education to other non-profits, donors, philanthropic organizations, native communities, and the general public. Cpf believes education about native peoples in this region, and the work they do supporting healthy communities and landscapes is critical to protecting this region for generations to come.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 96.6%; rating input score 97; 44th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -41.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.01; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 25 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.