In Colorado Initiative for Inclusive Higher Education
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472441202
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Littleton, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7206290196
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $400,283
- Expenses
- $476,761
- Assets
- $360,664
- Liabilities
- $1,146
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARON HINDMAN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- GREGG ZAIRE (EXECUTIVE DI): $78,500 total reported compensation
- SHAYNA LAING (EXECUTIVE DI): $59,115 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Develop college pathways for students with intellectual disabilities.
What it reported doing in 2025
In oversees and leads the Colorado inclusive higher education consortium. The group is made up of key stakeholders who are working to promote inclusive college access in Colorado. This group meets to share progress and continue to develop best practices, work towards accreditation standards, conduct program evaluation and onboard new colleges and universities looking to establish inclusive higher education themselves. With the graduate number increasing, an evaluation of graduates was completed and showed an 84% employment rate along with 88% of responses agreeing that their inclusive higher education program prepared them for employment. Along with employment rates, the survey showed positive outcomes associated with increased socialization and independent living.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 22.8%; rating input score 23; 42nd 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; 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -19.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $371K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 23/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.