Community Roots Midwife Collective

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832559201
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Longmont, CO, USA
Phone
1-855-664-3943
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,162,519
Expenses
$907,936
Assets
$743,248
Liabilities
$1,507

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lo Kawulok (Co Executive Director Secretary)
  • Rachel Engel (Co Executive Director President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rachel Engel (Co Executive Director President): $146,500 total reported compensation
  • Lo Kawulok (Co Executive Director Secretary): $140,210 total reported compensation
  • Josie Valadez Fraire (Member): $72,526 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide compassionate, community-rooted care that supports people through the prenatal, birth, and postpartum stages, making midwifery care accessible and affirming, especially for those often excluded from conventional health systems.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 CRMC cared for 1,800 people providing prenatal, birth, postpartum, newborn care, hosting groups and outreach, a Community Closet that provides free baby clothes and supplies, and traditional healing ceremonies through the Ancestral Womb and Postpartum Care program. 30% of CRMCs clients are accessing care through a sliding scale/ subsidy program. CRMC continues to offer community outreach and education through Nursing Nooks in public spaces and Meet the Midwife events to educate their community about midwifery care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.3%; rating input score 98; 50th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.9%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 62.2% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $716K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $146K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.