Bridge Street Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113250772
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7183990146
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,306,494
Expenses
$3,588,604
Assets
$2,149,958
Liabilities
$659,465

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREGORY ANDERSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY ANDERSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $233,951 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bridge street development corporation's mission is threefold: (1)developing and upgrading housing in low and moderate income families in the bedford-stuyvesant area; (2) encouraging the formation of businesses in, and recruiting prospective and existing businesses to, bedford-stuyvesant; and (3) developing management and administrative capacity that will allow for the centralized provision of such services to the several corporations affiliated with bridge street african wesleyan methodist episcopal church.

What it reported doing in 2024

Restorative justice-bsdc's restorative justice program, project restore bedstuy (prb), is an immersive, yearlong, initiative designed to assist young men in need of support due to their involvement in street formations. The project is a collaboration between many community and city stakeholders. Prb provides its participants with mentorship, wraparound support, and the resources to help them regain control of their lives. Core components include access to social resources and services, paid internship employment, targeted education, and important life skills. Additionally, through restorative justice and traumainformed programming, it allows participants to take responsibility for any harm caused, while also healing from any harm they may have experienced themselves.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -8.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.