Environmental Learning for Kids

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841436605
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7208654390
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,314,165
Expenses
$1,381,256
Assets
$1,262,714
Liabilities
$48,723

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTINA GRAY (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JEDIDAH FREDERICK (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEDIDAH FREDERICK (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $102,476 total reported compensation
  • KRISTINA GRAY (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $84,151 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cultivating a diverse community of leaders and environmental stewards by increasing outdoor equity.

What it reported doing in 2025

ELK served 1622 underserved, under-represented youth (ages 5-25) each year through year-round intensive programs and in-school/after-school programs in Denver, Adams, and Arapahoe Counties. ELK reaches racially and socioeconomically diverse communities in Denver, Aurora, and Commerce City by working directly with local schools, teachers and community groups to provide a wide variety of outreach activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -5.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 66.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $914K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.