Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 840943036
IRS 990 coverage: 2015–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Phone: 7204460812
Rating: 67
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Television

Reported finances

Revenue: $1,262,733
Expenses: $1,409,572
Assets: $8,030,710
Liabilities: $86,036

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

CASSANDRA TATE BAIR (VP BROADBAND SERVICES): $219,064 total reported compensation
ADAM MILLER (Exec Dir./Pres.): $209,532 total reported compensation
LUIS GOMEZ FORERO (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $116,529 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Denver area educational telecommunications consortium (daetc dba 35 mile foundation) is organized and will be operated exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific and social welfare purposes within the meaning of sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the internal revenue code.

What it reported doing in 2024

35 mile foundation maintains a grantmaking program targeting opportunities where we believe we can make a difference. We provide grants to new programs and emerging organizations as well as innovative approaches to social justice that arent currently being funded. As with our funding that targets closing the digital divide, we work within our network to identify opportunities and fund social justice organizations in a variety of ways from operating costs to spinning up new initiatives and everything in between. We make grants directly to recipient organizations as well as through directed funding through a donor advised fund we maintain at the community foundation boulder county.

Operating model

Revenue model: Other-operating. 82% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model: Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 59
Transparency & Controls: 64
Accountability: 84
Sustainability: 41
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
Program expense ratio: 52.9%; rating input score 53
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 97%; rating input score 97; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Major donor itemization: Limited
Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

Operating margin: -11.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.7; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 38.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 52.9% of spending went to programs
Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $746K in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 6 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.
Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.