Black Girl Ventures Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830935942
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
5717717424
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Small Business Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,539,358
Expenses
$3,909,836
Assets
$5,501,780
Liabilities
$53,303

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OMI BELL (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • OMI BELL (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $219,411 total reported compensation
  • VANESSA MCDOWELL-ATLAS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $148,671 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission is to create access to capital, capacity building and education for under resourced entrepreneurs that enables business sustainability and creates intergenerational wealth for a more equitable society.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide under resourced entrepreneurs with access to community, education and leadership development in order to meet business milestones that lead to economic success through entrepreneurship. The emerging leaderships fellowship (elf) program recieved 381 applications, exceeding its goal of 250 by 131. From this pool, 40 applicants were selected to join the immersive leadership program, which concluded in june 2024. The nextgen summer cohort also saw strong engagement, attracting 183 applications from exceptional hbcu students. Of the applications submitted, 24 scholars were selected to participate, gaining critical entrepreneurial knowledge and skills. The highly anticipated bgv pitch program received 539 applications across four bgv ecosystems: austin 5/3/24, chicago 7/11/24, New York city 11/7/24, and los angeles 12/5/24. A total of 28 founders were selected to participate in the competitions where they received resources to strengthen their business acumen and capital readiness. In each city, the top threee finalists received a cumulative total of $30k, one crowd favorite was awarded $2,500- totaling $10,000 across all cities. In total, over $130k was distributed to support growing businesses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 68.4%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $74.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.9%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 68.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.