Crestone College of Structural Integration

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464133006
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Crestone, CO, USA
Phone
7192859460
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,323
Expenses
$76,653
Assets
$18,077
Liabilities
$14,066

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MILTON BUDDY FRANK (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID DAVIS (DIRECTOR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to be an educational organization dedicated to teaching a form of holistic bodywork known as structural integration.

What it reported doing in 2015

To be an educational organization dedicated to teaching a form of holistic bodywork known as structural integration, a process of organizing the physical body in the field of gravity, using the "line" - a conceptualized central vertical axis - as the organizing principle, and applying the concepts and goals of the ten-series as the method for facilitating structural alignment and balance around the line.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 69.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 89.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 63.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.