Bridging Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300590424
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Temple Hills, MD, USA
Phone
4434496018
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,479,824
Expenses
$1,421,812
Assets
$261,803
Liabilities
$368,949

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tony Butler (Executive Director's Advisor)
  • Patrecia Williams (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tyrell-Omar Williams (Officer): $37,500 total reported compensation
  • Byron Wells Jr (Officer): $2,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

OOH's mission is to instill hope and make a difference in the lives of children, adults, elders, veterans, families, and animals, as they navigate through life's interruptions and disruptions by providing a sustainable continuum of care services including emotional, educational, and behavioral support.

What it reported doing in 2025

Youth Drug-Free & Prevention Coalition: This initiative focuses on empowering young people through education, mentorship, and community engagement. Services include after-school programs, leadership development workshops, peer support groups, school-based prevention education, and recreational activities promoting healthy alternatives to substance use.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $215.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: 86.8%; rating input score 87; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 3.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.41; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $38K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.