In the Looking Glass Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522442583
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7195880900
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Treatment Only

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$480,238
Expenses
$286,244
Assets
$575,863
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • Norman E Vaux II (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Health, safety, welfare, and education programs for those in need, which includes infrastructure development (water and food production), schooling, medical services, and environmental awareness. Current activities include supporting a 50-bed children's shelter in Mexico, supporting a childcare/nursery and preschool school in Uganda, providing post-addiction counseling in the USA and abroad, rural medical services in Mexico, developing a solar powered municipal water system in rural Mexico and promoting global solutions for the plastic waste and forever chemical crisis.

What it reported doing in 2025

50-bed children's shelter [Refugio Infantil Santa Esperanza] and education programs for at risk children in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. ' Average annual shelter population (ranging from infants to early adolescents) 30 children. Installed significant solar system and expanded nursey services. Supported by DBA RISE.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.5% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.3% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $261K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.