Local Motion Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030361422
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlington, VT, USA
Phone
8028612700
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,505,843
Expenses
$1,453,477
Assets
$1,390,085
Liabilities
$284,199

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NIC ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA ERICKSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $92,827 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Making it safe, accessible, and fun for everyone to bike, walk, and roll in Vermont.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community, education & safety: community, education & safety programs are multi-age education, safety and advocacy programs including bike smart and walk smart, safe routes for school, and complete streets. Bike smart is local motion's youth on-bike education program, serving a number of schools with a high percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch. This program has reached over 150 towns in all 14 Vermont counties. Walk smart is a curriculum used by schools for improving pedestrian safety. Safe routes for school is a program designed to make all road users safe while using our roadways, especially when traveling to and from schools. The goal of this program is to increase walking and biking by improving the safety of our streets. Additional educational programs includes workshops, group bike rides, and events that are inclusive and accessible to be as inviting as possible for anyone who is interested in bicycling and walking more. Local motion's complete streets is focused on improving on-street infrastructure and policy at both the state and local levels, with the goal of making Vermont streets safe and comfortable for all users. We work towards this through a variety of means, including organizing and coalition building, forming and supporting local walk/bike groups, gathering community feedback and providing technical assistance for infrastructure proposals, and helping municipalities experiment with new infrastructure at a low cost through the use of our pop-up project mobile support unit.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $813K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.