Boston Bruins Charitable Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200172439
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6176241900
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,593,082
Expenses
$4,355,186
Assets
$6,386,657
Liabilities
$1,369,754

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT SWEENEY (PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLES JACOBS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT SWEENEY (PRESIDENT): $351,570 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist charitable organizations that demonstrate a commitment to enhancing the quality of life for children and their families throughout new england. The foundation focuses on organizations that are concentrated on academics, athletics, community outreach, and health and wellness and believes that these pillars will create a strong support system that will ultimately lead to the betterment of our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The boston bruins foundation (bbf) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting charitable organizations that demonstrate a strong commitment to improving the quality of life for children across new england. Since its founding in july 2003 by the jacobs family, the foundation has focused on advancing programs that foster the well-being and development of children. In alignment with its mission, the foundation provides grants to organizations engaged in initiatives that promote athletics, academic achievement, health, and community engagement. Through its grant-making, the foundation seeks to empower children with opportunities for growth, learning, and active participation in their communities, helping to create meaningful and lasting impacts on the lives of young people throughout the region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 70.4%; rating input score 70; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th 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: 5.2%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $352K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 94 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 95 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.