Bull City Forward

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272233315
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9192289365
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,290
Expenses
$17,623
Assets
$3,212
Liabilities
$15,191

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Christopher Gergen (Executive Dir.)
  • Tucker Bartlett (Chairman)
  • Farad Ali (Vice Chairman)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Bull City Forward's mission is to enable high-impact, high-growth entrepreneurs to create sustainable social and economic impact. We do this by providing our members, local entrepreneurs, the resources and relationships they need to grow and reach their impact potential.

What it reported doing in 2013

Membership Support - Serving current members of Bull City Forward by providing office space, peer leadership groups, mentoring/coaching services and facilitating feedback sessions. Over the course of 2013 we held 5 education sessions for members, developed and conducted "peer leadership groups" that 10 members participated in, and conducted two feedback sessions between community leaders and resident social entrepreneurs.

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
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 31.3%; rating input score 31

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -71.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.73; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -98.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -82.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -111.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 31.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.