Housing Colorado
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841234119
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Denver, CO, USA
- Phone
- 3038630124
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,545,933
- Expenses
- $1,470,577
- Assets
- $2,174,073
- Liabilities
- $293,363
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN ROSSBERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- BRIAN ROSSBERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,396 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Housing Colorado! Is a unified voice supporting the presentation and production of quality affordable housing for low and moderate income coloradans through education and advocacy statewide in order to build a strong economy
What it reported doing in 2025
Housing Colorado! Provided high quality, professional development opportunities for over 1,200 affordable housing practitioners through its monthly education series; regional programs; and annual conference. 3,000 housing professionals were kept informed of policy updates, best practices, training, resource and job opportunities through the publication of the bi-monthly e-news, social media and the website.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 52
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.7%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 65.8%; rating input score 66
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.7% of revenue deployed · 65.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $968K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.