Bread and Roses Community Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232047297
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2157311107
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,417,880
Expenses
$3,549,629
Assets
$16,738,574
Liabilities
$1,890,516

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CASEY COOK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CASEY COOK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $206,286 total reported compensation
  • TRACY JONES (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/OPERATIONS): $168,933 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bread & roses community fund believes in change, not charity. A partnership between donors and activists, we organize individuals and institutions to support grassroots organizations in building movements for social change. By making grants, developing leaders and building community, bread & roses community fund creates real change in the philadelphia region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide training for organizers and activists in community organizing, fundraising, grant writing, outreach, and more. Provide political education for donors and organizers through small group sessions, publications, events and other programming. Build community and bring people together through special programs and events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.4%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.7%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.72; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $335K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 55 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 51 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.