Bridgeport Pride Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
991151095
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bridgeport, CT, USA
Phone
2032123580
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
LGBT Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,140
Expenses
$153,110
Assets
$80,423
Liabilities
$1,393

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COLIN HOSTEN (PRESIDENT)
  • JULIA DICOLA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARCUS BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARCUS BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $34,615 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bridgeport pride center creates affirming and empowering spaces and recources for intersecting and allied lgbtq+ communities in greater bridgeport.we seek to pursue uplifting social and wellness opportunities and to unite our voices through collective action, education, and outreach.

What it reported doing in 2024

The bridgeport pride center serves as a vital hub for the lgbtqia+ community and allies throug its comprehensive support services, diverse programming, and extensive resources. We offer a safe and welcoming space where individuals can connect, learn, and grow. Our center provides support through groups, edcuational workshops, social events, and an annual pride celebration. We also maintain a resource library and offer referrals to lgbtqia+ affirming services. By fostering inclusivity and emplowerment, we strive to strengthen out community and promote equality for all. In 2024, bridgeport pride center produced its premiere program, the greater bridgeport pride festival, for the first time. This large community event fostered connections within the greater community, connected attendees with services and providers that could benefit their lives, and provided uplifting and empowering entertainment throughout the day. The festival also serves as an opportunity for small businesses and artists to showcase their works and connect with customers and patrons. The festival included a series of smaller events before and after the main event that furthered the opportunity for community members to create new social connections, combating isolation. In 2024, bridgeport pride center also opened its brick-and-mortar community center space, from which new programs such as peer support groups, social gatherings, and art exhibits were hosted in its first year. The community center space also provides an opportunity for other nonprofit social service providers in the city to distribute informational materials about their services and connect with new clients who could benefit from their services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.6%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.6% of revenue deployed · 59.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.