Warren Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840644270
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033212345
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Parent Agencies

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,570,069
Expenses
$10,268,512
Assets
$35,302,418
Liabilities
$8,117,101

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ETHAN HEMMING (PRESIDENT/CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • ETHAN HEMMING (PRESIDENT/CE): $222,575 total reported compensation
  • AMY FLEMING (VP STRATEGY,): $187,853 total reported compensation
  • KAREN FOX ELWELL (VP FAMILY &): $142,247 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Warren village exists so low-income, single-parent families can achieve sustainable personal and economic self-sufficiency.

What it reported doing in 2024

Family supportive services and volunteer segments: our adult self- sufficiency program has multiple elements. Residents attend post-secondary educational programs or work part or fulltime with staff support, and receive support through various wellness initiatives. Residents also participate in ongoing enrichment classes to develop foundational skill and work with family advocates and navigators who guide them through personal and wellness goals, early learning center enrollment for children, and other assistance. Residents in the first step program are part of a communal living program for single mothers at another north denver location, offering many similar self sufficiency program components. Similar resident and childrens' programs are also provided to the residents of the newly opened warren village at alameda, with limited programming available at ivy crossing, a non-warren village owned facility. In addition, hundreds of dedicated volunteers provide a wide range of supports, offsetting costs through conducting enrichment classes, intern work, holiday activities, childcare and resident events.

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 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.3%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.44; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.3% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 36 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.