Ethics Watch Dba Colorado Ethics Watch

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811035738
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3036262100
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,029
Expenses
$326,542
Assets
$17,240
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG STAGGS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUIS TORO (EXCECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $116,624 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ethics watch uses high impact legal actions to hold public officials and organizations accountable for unethical activities that undermine the integrity of government in Colorado. The organization accomplishes its mission by combining in-depth research and investigation with legal action and an aggressive communications strategy meant to deter further misbehavior. It augments these efforts by building coalitions to push for policies favoring transparency and accountability, and educating the public about their role in keeping Colorado government honest and transparent.

What it reported doing in 2017

Defending and enforcing Colorado ethics and campaign finance laws through litigation and monitoring of the independent ethics commission, educate the public about the importance of a strong, independent federal judiciary, and producing reports that highlight wrongdoing and build the case for reform of state and local ethics, campaign finance, and transparency laws.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.9%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -31.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -65% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -139% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $274K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.