Bridge Institute US Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882655878
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Haverhill, Suffolk, UK
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Reported finances

Revenue
$350,566
Expenses
$521,725
Assets
$40,431
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Simon McKenzie (Mr)
  • Suzanne Darkins (Mrs)
  • Lucas Holtz (Mr)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote a more sustainable peaceful and fairer world for everyone by bringing together the key stakeholders, equipping them with the required leadership skills and facilitating them through a breakthrough strategyand execution process to solving the significant challenges of our time as set out in United Nations sustainable Development Goals

What it reported doing in 2025

Education for Peace - to promote a more peaceful sustainable and prosperous world for everyone by unlocking the power of education. Bringing key stakeholders together to start the conversation how education can be advanced by building and supporting schools with a specific focus on fostering pece prosperity and community cohesion.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 59.5%; rating input score 59; 47th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -48.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.5% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 50.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -135.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $521K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 42 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.