Lifespan Local Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873136973
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7204274283
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,086,888
Expenses
$4,122,923
Assets
$26,333,487
Liabilities
$4,829,933

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYDIA PRADO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LYDIA PRADO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $219,808 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cultivate community well-being through partnerships with local residents and community champions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our food team doubled the size of the southwest food coalition, bringing together 40 organizations committed to ensuring access to healthy, culturally responsive food for residents. Through this collaboration, coalition partners collectively distributed more than 1,000,000 pounds of food.the southwest food coalition (resident-led, with administrative and funding support from lifespan local) has made measurable progress in addressing food insecurity while advancing longer-term systems change. By fostering communication, collaboration, and resource-sharing among food access organizations, the coalition strengthened coordination across the network through july 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.8%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 44.7%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 18.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.39; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.8% of revenue deployed · 44.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.