Good Capital
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 301351668
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO, United States
- Phone
- 719-600-2210
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $276,086
- Expenses
- $259,178
- Assets
- $2,702,769
- Liabilities
- $2,521,897
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Shane Sherman (President)
- Lisa Tessarowicz (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Shane Sherman (President): $1,000 total reported compensation
- Lisa Tessarowicz (Vice President): $1,000 total reported compensation
- Katie Willemarck (Treasurer): $1,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To lower the barriers to capital for small businesses in Colorado. We are a nonprofit, which means our success is measured in businesses kept open and jobs created — not profit extracted. We bring multiple sources of capital to the table so more Colorado owners can get to "yes." Why we exist Traditional lending leaves a lot of good businesses behind — newer operators, thinner files, industries the banks have quietly decided to avoid. Those owners still need capital to grow, hire, and serve their neighborhoods. We were built to be the alternative: a mission-driven lender that looks at the whole picture and brings multiple sources of capital to the table so more business owners can get to "yes." How we're different ✓**Nonprofit.** Our success is measured in businesses kept open and jobs created, not profit extracted.
What it reported doing in 2025
Lend money to underserved borrowers and small businesses
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.43; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 72.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $163K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.