Littleton Transportation Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825192442
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Littleton, CO, USA
Phone
3033247060
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,845
Expenses
$11,435
Assets
$21,545
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Evan Cauble-Johnson (Director)
  • Ethan Spears (Director)
  • Sandra Blythe-Perry (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the SMCF is to enhance and improve the quality of life for people living in the South Denver Metro area of Colorado. Values: Promoting inclusion Building self-reliance among individuals and community nonprofits Being an agent for positive change The goal of the SMCF is to support positive programs and projects that enhance educational civic environmental human and intercultural relationships housing historic artistic culture health social services and other quality-of-life-promoting activities in the South Denver Metro area.

What it reported doing in 2025

Foster Youth Emancipation Navigation Services: The South Metro Community Foundation is raising money to help provide navigators for foster care youth at least a year before they leave the foster care system at age 18. Navigators hired through a partnership with Advocates for Children CASA of Arapahoe County will help these young people apply for housing vouchers obtain job training or education and develop life skills. $18,750 was raised in 2025 for this initiative as a pass through.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 58.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 58.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 41 current checks pass · 6 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.