Rocky Mountain Workforce Development Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020621786
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Centennial, CO, USA
Phone
3033012901
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$112,770
Expenses
$24,615
Assets
$111,030

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kelly Folks (President)

People named in this filing

  • Kelly Folks (President)
  • Erin Jones (Director)
  • Jacob Castillo (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To produce an annual training conference for workforce development professionals. Build capacity of workforce professionals, Workforce Development Board Members and Community partners as to enhance and improve employment and training services that are provided to job seekers and employers. Member agencies plan and sponsor forums which are held at different locations in Colorado and out of state training, attend meetings and workforce development professional conferences.

What it reported doing in 2020

Produced one training conference for workforce development professionals during this program year and assisted with four workforce professionals' coaching retreats. Built capacity of workforce professionals and community agencies to improve employment and training services provided to job seekers and employers. Planned and sponsored forums which were held at difference locations in Colorado.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.8%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 78.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.51; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.