League for Innovation in The

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952577300
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chandler, AZ, USA
Phone
4807058200
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,924,744
Expenses
$2,145,184
Assets
$1,292,463
Liabilities
$878,159

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUFUS GLASPER (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • RUFUS GLASPER (PRESIDENT &): $319,007 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA WILSON (VICE PRESIDE): $177,861 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To encourage and evaluate innovation and experimentation designed to improve all aspects of community college operation, through the association of a group of community colleges.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conferences and institutes: the league holds events to provide forums for members, partners, and nonmembers to discuss current issues facing community colleges and share their innovations and best practices with colleagues; opportunities for individual professional and leadership development, including preparation for a community college presidency; and venues for team-building and organizational development leading to innovative and improved practice. The league held three events: (a) innovations conference; (b) learning summit; and (c) executive leadership institute.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.68; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.1% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $319K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.