Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Manchester Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510180586
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Manchester, NH, USA
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$263,214
Expenses
$230,651
Assets
$186,070
Liabilities
$90,457

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIM STIKEMAN (Vice President)
  • CHRIS WELLINGTON (President)
  • KATIE ORLANDO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATIE ORLANDO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $40,962 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to help children reach their potential through professionally supported, long-term, one-to-one relationships.

What it reported doing in 2013

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Manchester has been matching area children to caring volunteer mentors since 1966. A Big Brother or Big Sister provides guidance, friendship, encouragement and support which helps a child grow into a responsible and productive part of the community. Our services are provided free-of-charge.Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Manchester currently has Community Based Matches in Manchester and its neighboring towns, as well as Site Based programs that include Wilson Street Elementary School, Bakersville School, Girls Inc. Manchester and Concord Boys and Girls Club.Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Manchester assisted 300 children during the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $198K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.