Colorado Sun

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
365082144
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3039081693
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Media, Communications Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,020,681
Expenses
$3,254,914
Assets
$960,470
Liabilities
$900,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nina Henderson Moore (Board President)
  • Lawrence Ryckman (President)
  • Dana Coffield (Vice President)
  • Jennifer Brown-Koenig (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Nina Henderson Moore (Board President)
  • Anthony Neal-Graves (Treasurer)
  • John Ingold (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Colorado Sun is a digital, nonpartisan news organization that seeks to educate and inform the people of Colorado about the issues that affect us all. We produce daily news stories about the environment, climate change, education, health, water, transportation, and govt.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide a journalist-founded, award-winning news outlet based in Denver that strives to cover all of Colorado.

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 100% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.7%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th 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: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 47% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.7% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 34 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Board meeting minutes documented not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.