Front Rangers Cycling Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841239901
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3036685158
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$163,122
Expenses
$144,565
Assets
$902,707
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher Clark (Executive Director)
  • Steve Morgan (President)
  • Jonathan Steeler (Vice-President & Secretary)
  • James Joy (Former Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christopher Clark (Executive Director): $69,721 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Front Rangers is a positive youth development program, through cycling, to facilitate physical, academic and social-emotional development. We model and encourage healthy, safe and responsible life choices. We serve a socio-economically diverse community of youth, including 50% at-risk youth from marginalized communities and 50% from families of financial means. We contribute to the development of successful adults and believe that socio-economic status should not determine a youth's future success. We allow youth to fully develop their bicycling passion and abilities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Front Rangers provided youth development through a twice per week cycling program for children ages 11-18. Front Rangers provided programming to 21 youth, several of whom were considered at-risk and living below the poverty level. Training and education were provided by professional coaches, with backgrounds as educators across elementary, middle and high school levels. Programming included both on the bike and off the bike training and education sessions. Front Rangers participated in recreational rides, local races sanctioned by USA Cycling and in bike tours. Programming begins in January and continues through October, resulting in year-round development opportunities. In addition to physical fitness, participants were introduced to the science of physiology and nutrition. They were also provided social-emotional development and important cultural development given our diverse mix of youth. Mechanical skills are also introduced as youth become responsible for participating in the maintenance, repair and safety check of their bicycles and equipment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 31.3%; rating input score 31
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 25th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.4%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.24; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 31.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.