Friends of the Highlands Ranch Senior Center Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201199395
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7204684825
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $50,907
- Expenses
- $41,311
- Assets
- $25,834
- Liabilities
- $2,564
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Margaret Frommelt (President)
- Jim Davis (1st Vice President)
- Darla Jekich (2nd Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Margaret Frommelt (President)
- Jim Davis (1st Vice President)
- Darla Jekich (2nd Vice President)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Organization was formed to serve the senior population of the Highlands Ranch Community, Douglas County and adjacent areas in Colorado. The purpose of the Organization is to support the Highlands Ranch Metro District's programs through the Highlands Ranch Senior Center. These programs help older adults pursue meaningful educational, social, health, recreational, volunteer and leadership activities, thus allowing them to age independently in the Highlands Ranch community. The organization solicits donations and conducts fundraising activities to support its charitable operations.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Organization hosts lunches for its members. These provide social interaction, as well as after-lunch musical entertainment. In 2025, 362 different members attended one or more luncheons.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.3%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 73.3% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $37K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.