The Urban Ministry Institute of Colorado

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
921369802
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Foxfield, CO, US
Phone
720-487-7855
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,394
Expenses
$37,723
Assets
$13,804
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Greg Speer (President)
  • Deb Anderson (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristin Briggs (Dean): $14,000 total reported compensation
  • Christian Paetsch (Director): $12,500 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 Urban Ministry Institute (TUMI) of Colorado is a non-denominational, Christ centered educational institution. Our team is committed to mentoring and educating God-gifted men and women, equipping and empowering them for Christian ministry. We offer affordable-for-all, including to those in low-income communities and in prison, curriculum that focuses on equipping our students for Christian ministry leadership, urban and international missions, church planting, and trauma healing. We are committed to excellence in biblical, theological, and pastoral education. Students may pursue a Certificate in Christian Leadership.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our Trauma Healing Program equips urban ministry workers and leaders to facilitate Bible-based healing groups. Participants can choose to be trained in leading their own healing groups, exponentially expanding the ministry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -43.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.