Emily Griffith Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841169001
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7205239222
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,899,555
Expenses
$1,687,836
Assets
$11,019,864
Liabilities
$457,850

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBIN CHALECKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBIN CHALECKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $206,065 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to provide educational and charitable funding for the support of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and programs of emily griffith technical college which cannot be funded by the financial resources of the college.

What it reported doing in 2024

Emily griffith foundation provides financial support through tuition scholarships, program support, and student success resources to expand access and opportunity for the 8,000-10,000 students who attend emily griffith technical college each year. Program support investments strengthen the college's ability to deliver high-quality career and technical education. These investments may include funding for instructor salaries, start-up costs for new programs or initiatives, and capital support for facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure that enhance the student learning environment. The foundation also administers the student essentials & emergencies fund, which provides flexible financial assistance to help students address essential non-tuition expenses that can impact their ability to stay enrolled and complete their training. Eligible students may apply for support to cover urgent or essential needs such as transportation, rent, childcare, healthcare, books, tools and supplies, or licensure and certification exam fees required for program completion.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.4%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.1%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.53; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.4% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.