Across the Bridge Foundation Dba Downtown College Preparatory

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770517240
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4086411327
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$359,240
Expenses
$356,514
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$34,839,941

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • KARI BOWYER (CHAPTER 7 TTEE)

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

Downtown college preparatory (dcp) prepared first-generation students (first in their family to go to college) for college success. To that end, dcp provided educational programs and services, managed, operated, guided, directed and promoted California public charter schools (grades 5-12).

What it reported doing in 2025

Prior to the chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filing across the bridge foundation ran three small academic charter schools with a clear goal of preparing each of its students to thrive at a four-year university. High standards, personalized attention and an explicit focus on college success drove the academic program at downtown college preparatory. The efforts of everyone at the school, students, staff, and community, were aligned to achieve this singular vision.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 56.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $200K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.