Denver Community Ventures

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453714223
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7209323000
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$654,622
Expenses
$454,112
Assets
$1,038,904
Liabilities
$65,968

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSHUA CRAWLEY - DHA (MEMBER (TERM END 4/24)): $335,102 total reported compensation
  • JOAQUIN CINTRON VEGA - DHA (MEMBER): $310,464 total reported compensation
  • ANNIE HANCOCK - DHA (SECRETARY): $196,203 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To empower low-income families and individuals towards self-sufficiency and independent living.

What it reported doing in 2024

Denver community ventures, dba friends of dha, secures essential funding to deliver services to residents in and around the denver housing authority's (dha's)affordable housing communities with a goal to move residentsto self-sufficiency by providing them with supportive services andresources that enhance their quality of life.this funding helps sustain current programs and levels of service, as well as bridges gaps when federal funding is reduced or does not meet critical needs. Continued on schedule o: the primary focus areas for resident programming in 2024 included: economic self-sufficiency programming that connected residents to skill building, job training and career coaching, financial literacy education, debt reduction and credit building case management, and first-time homebuyer education and counseling; resources for seniors and disabled adults to age-in-place and live more independently; affordable high-speed digital access, computers, and training to all residents to further promote resident self-sufficiency and economic independence for all age groups; youth school and holiday drives, summertime reading programs, and educational resources; and community events for culture sharing and onsite garden plots to promote healthy living.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.1%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.6%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.1% of revenue deployed · 58.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $267K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $335K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.