Brotherwood Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993772751
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Louisville, KY, USA
- Phone
- 6064250527
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health, Crisis Intervention N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,181
- Expenses
- $60,033
- Assets
- $7,431
- Liabilities
- $3,283
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- Bradley M Howard (Director)
- Mary E howard (Director)
- Jennifer Albright (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To foster compassion, resilience, and empowerment while ensuring access to support and resources for suicide prevention. Through every interaction and bag of Brotherwood coffee sold, they aim to create a community where compassion is abundant, resilience is nurtured, and everyone has access to the help they need.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sell coffee online to raise money for suicide prevention resources. All funds go to scholarships. Also raise awareness for suicide prevention through The Louisville Bicycle Club and UK Healthcare for QPR training.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.9%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 57
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.9% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $34K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.