Boston Local Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042681311
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6179185414
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,981,160
Expenses
$1,092,590
Assets
$8,788,042
Liabilities
$82,549

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN E MARSTON (PRESIDENT)
  • SEGUN IDOWU (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA HERRINGTON (GENERAL COUNSEL): $256,886 total reported compensation
  • AMINA SCOTT (TREASURER): $179,194 total reported compensation
  • GISELLA SORIANO (SR. MANAGER FOR SMALL BUSI): $131,567 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 benefit the community by fostering increased employment opportunities and expansion of business and industry for the citizens of the city of boston. Bldc accomplishes this by providing long-term financing to firms and companies located in the city of boston, Massachusetts.

What it reported doing in 2024

Financial opportunity center - program which is provided to low-to moderate-income residents by providing career services, to help residents start on a pathway that leads to employment opportunities that pay living wages, and individualized financial coaching, which begins with a budget and goal for the future, incorporating savings and asset building. This free coaching takes place in one-on-one meetings over 18-24 months. This program supported approximately 437 residents in fiscal year 2025. Credit building programming. Early childhood literacy, and children's savings accounts are also key components of the services provided by the center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 50th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.9%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.04; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $936K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $257K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.