Twin Cities Schools' Telecommunications Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411804970
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Longmont, CO, USA
Phone
3035322852
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,469,348
Expenses
$3,301,607
Assets
$28,818,729
Liabilities
$1,288,694

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIA HADDEN (PRESIDENT)
  • BRENDA WILLIAMS-SEARS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENDA WILLIAMS-SEARS (CEO): $248,954 total reported compensation
  • LISA REED (CFO): $217,809 total reported compensation
  • DAN O'NEIL (DIRECTOR (TERM 03/25)): $31,952 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2024

Voqal partners inc. Spent $1,267,500 in the fiscal year 2025 and contributed $94,000 in the eop program. Existing investments are sustained, but future investments are discontinued.voqal twin cities is proud to be part of the voqal fellowship. The voqal fellowship is an investment in people as individuals and budding entrepreneurs; a talent and startup accelerator aimed at giving those often overlooked by traditional funders a chance to enact their visions. In fiscal year 2025, eight individuals were selected as fellows after a rigorous search process. Their projects focused on issues ranging from civic media to online tools. In fiscal year 2025, eight individuals were selected totaling $248,000, which was allocated across all entities. Tcstg contributed $75,300.00 to the program in conjunction with citf and ebsss pre-merger to comprise the full $248,000.in fiscal year 2025, voqal partners inc made grants totaling $1,177,500 via tcstg post-merger.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.7%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.73; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.7% of revenue deployed · 53.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $249K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $992K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 36 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 35 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 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.