Pyramid Model Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464846257
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Fort Collins, CO, USA
Phone
2173900403
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,329,628
Expenses
$8,743,520
Assets
$11,404,135
Liabilities
$885,226

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHANNON RUDISILL (PRESIDENT)
  • TIONIA WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROB CORSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROB CORSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $245,778 total reported compensation
  • HOPE BEISSEL (SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR): $163,054 total reported compensation
  • AIMEE ACKLEY (PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK DIRECTOR): $125,001 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The pyramid model consortium exists to promote the high fidelity use of the pyramid model for supporting social emotional competence in infants and young children.

What it reported doing in 2025

Disseminate research findings and resources on effective practices through training and technical asssistance to address challenges that providers, families and policy makers confront in supporting young children's social emotional development and challenging behavior. The pyramid model consortium provides training and technical assistance to states, communities and programs to guide the development of systems that result in the implementation, scale-up and maintenance of high fidelity use of the pyramid model within early care and education programs and services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.4%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $246K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $534K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.