Brooklyn Navy Yard

Legal name: Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
112137138
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
718-907-5900
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$157,153,274
Expenses
$96,745,816
Assets
$1,084,013,549
Liabilities
$630,103,969

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

Leadership & pay

50 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDSAY GREENE (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDSAY GREENE (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $399,854 total reported compensation
  • WIMAL ARIYAWANSA (CFO AND EVP): $369,798 total reported compensation
  • SHANNY SPRAUS-REINHARDT (CHIEF IMPACT OFFICER & EVP): $354,480 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

BNYDC’s mission is to fuel New York City’s economic vitality by creating and preserving quality jobs, growing the City’s modern industrial sector and its businesses, and connecting the local community with the economic opportunity and resources of the Yard.

What it reported doing in 2024

To manage the brooklyn navy yard for the city of New York, specifically to expand job opportunites for new yorkers by fostering the development of small businesses.

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 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

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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.5%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.2; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 48.5% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $74.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 50 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 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: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.