Boys to Men USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812507158
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Prescott, AZ, USA
Phone
2023337403
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,842
Expenses
$23,425
Assets
$44,718
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Michael Bonahan (Chairman)
  • Walter Augustine (VP Finance)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support to mentoring organizations in the US and internationally with policies, training, and startup supervision for new Boys to Men centers.

What it reported doing in 2019

Boys to Men USA provided support for Boys to Men organizations in 13 cities across the US. Our work enabled over 1,400 boys to have access to a positive male role model. We have strengthened existing BtM centers by establishing nationwide policies for training, recruiting, screening, and deploying mentors. We have developed a nationwide safety standard. We have also secured funding to stand up a new center in the San Francisco Bay area. We have also provided support for a program geared to girls called Girls to Women.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -509.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 150% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 61.5% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2017 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.