Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841185092
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7194718183
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$411,094
Expenses
$366,183
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To sustain and improve the quality of life in the greater Colorado springs area by helping to meet community demand for the number, diversification, and average income of primary jobs needed to support the population and the tax base.

What it reported doing in 2011

The creation of new primary jobs by attracting additional investment into the greater Colorado springs community through the expansion of companies with out of area headquarters, attracting out of town companies to expand, then relocate into the area and announce jobs to the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 60.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $280K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.