Black Leaders Detroit

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842514445
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3135504343
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,228,221
Expenses
$1,466,771
Assets
$2,709,982
Liabilities
$252,901

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHANNON GASTON (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLIE D DANDRIDGE (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • QUAN NELOMS (DIRECTOR)
  • DOMINIQUE CAMPBELL (DIRECTOR)
  • SHANNON GASTON (PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide financial support for diverse social and community impact projects originated and led by Detroiters of African descent.

What it reported doing in 2024

Black Leaders Detroit (BLD) issued $1,217,500 in no-interest loans and $362,000 in grants. BLD helped provide a significant financial boost to businesses and nonprofits owned by individuals of African Descent, which often struggle to access adequate funding. BLD proudly welcomed college interns to assist in the enhancement of our Rising Black Leaders programan entrepreneurial initiative designed to empower and invest in high school school scholars through transformative grants. We also celebrated the spirit of entrepreneurship with the EnterpreneuHERs Brunch, a high-energy, speed-dating style pitch competition that highlighted the dynamism and ingenuity of women entrepreneurs of African descent. BLD also spearheaded a series of activations throughout Detroit, promoting the importance of shopping local and supporting our vibrant Black business community. These initiatives are all part of our commitment to fueling creativity, innovation, and economic empowerment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.3%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 0th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 45.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.3% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.