Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Bay Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942502278
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Rafael, CA, USA
Phone
4154533800
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$809,423
Expenses
$729,831
Assets
$1,027,686
Liabilities
$267,396

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anne Coyne (President)
  • Barbara Miller (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Karen Bluestone (Executive Dir.): $112,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide children facing adversity with strong and enduring professionally supported, one-to-one relationships that change their lives for the better, forever.

What it reported doing in 2016

Community Based Mentoring - Recruited, screened, trained and matched adult volunteers one-on-one with children in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties that need a mentor. Coordinated referrals for youth from schools, therapists, caseworkers, child protective services, probations departments, and other community groups. Our matches meet two to four times per month and engage in fun and educational activities that broaden their horizons and guide them on a lifelong path of success. We are accountable to each child in our program achieving: educational success; avoidance of risky behaviors; higher aspirations; greater confidence and better relationships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% 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.
  • 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 62%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 62% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $452K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.