Trailhead Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841267213
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3039104682
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,208,772
Expenses
$22,163,157
Assets
$11,464,104
Liabilities
$1,700,422

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH LAMPE (PRESIDENT/EXEC DIR (THRU 1/24))
  • MICHELE SHIMOMURA (PRESIDENT/EXEC DIR (AS OF 8/24))
  • ROGER LOW (CEO & FOUNDER CEEMI)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARIA DELORES RAMIREZ (ED OF CBEH): $183,425 total reported compensation
  • JOEL MCCLURG (ED INTEGRATION CBEH): $178,349 total reported compensation
  • ROGER LOW (CEO & FOUNDER CEEMI): $158,743 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Trailhead institute advances innovation and collaboration in public and environmental health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Trailhead institute is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, formed in 1993 exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to: - complement the activities, providing professional and technical consultation as needed, of public and private organizations which improve health and the environment - help public and private sector groups develop, plan, seek to fund, manage, and evaluate projects and programs that match our basic purpose.- assist those people, partnerships and organizations that develop creative and potentially valuable programs and need assistance with requesting or managing the funds.

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 86% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.8%; rating input score 95; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 82 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 72 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.