Blacklidge Community Collective

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843282314
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
8126049847
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$346,195
Expenses
$211,542
Assets
$288,425
Liabilities
$9,908

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • RYAN SEAL (OFFICER)
  • JOSIE SHAPIRO (DIRECTOR)
  • JOSH DUNLAP (OFFICER)

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 cultivate the practical skills, strategies, and creative thinking necessary for not only surviving the ongoing crises, but re-imagining and asserting what it means to live dignified lives within them.

What it reported doing in 2024

Blacklidge community collective (bcc) promotes community resilience and self-determination by providing inclusive spaces for education, creativity, and collaboration in tucson, Arizona. Bcc hosts workshops, skill-shares, and events focused on sustainability, harm reduction, and collective care while offering meeting space for grassroots groups. These activities strengthen local networks, develop practical skills, and foster equitable community engagement. Guided by principles of consent and collaboration, bcc empowers individuals to live with greater autonomy and dignity. During the year, bcc served diverse participants through ongoing programs supporting shared learning and community connection.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.9%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 66.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 61.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 94% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $199K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 57/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.