Brighton Park Neighborhood Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364229387
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7735237110
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,259,028
Expenses
$11,783,614
Assets
$7,040,476
Liabilities
$1,717,104

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK BROSNAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANITA CABALLERO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK BROSNAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $155,000 total reported compensation
  • CARLA RODRIGUEZ (DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES): $100,636 total reported compensation
  • SARA RESCHLY (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES): $100,251 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create a safer community, improve the learning environment at public schools, preserve affordable housing, provide a voice for youth, protect immigrant rights, promote gender equality, and end all forms of violence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bpnc organizes campaigns and services that address a range of issues and needs such as: community related, economic justice, and education justice issues; school-based resources and full-service community schools, gang and domestic violence, healthcare justice and quality healthcare for all, the need to rejuvenate our communitys park and green space, and the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 3.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $492K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.