District Bridges

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260325241
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022279559
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,926,677
Expenses
$2,877,336
Assets
$721,275
Liabilities
$1,095,993

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIANNE DORNBUSH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIANNE DORNBUSH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $121,065 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Enrich neighborhood vitality by bridging community engagement and economic development opportunities so individuals, businesses & organizations can thrive together.

What it reported doing in 2024

Small business support: provides direct support to small businesses through in-person and online technical assistance, and capacity building grants, place management, and marketing. This program is funded by the department of small and local business development, department of housing and community development, and more.community navigation: provides connective services to vulnerable residents within the services areas. This program is supported by the mayor's office on latino affairs and the department of behavioral health.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4,496.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 15%; rating input score 15; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.52; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $121K · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $102K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • 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 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.