Eliza Bryant Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
340715816
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2163611700
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$-799,017
Expenses
$881,924
Assets
$6,041,733
Liabilities
$51,182

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEAN ALLEN-JENKINS (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TEENA MITCHELL (PRESIDENT, AUX I)
  • MARGARET MITCHELL (PRESIDENT, AUX. III)
  • GWENDOLYN JAMES (PRESIDENT, AUX. II)
  • BRIDGETTE RODGERS (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIDGETTE RODGERS (PRESIDENT/CEO): $51,582 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Eliza bryant village, established in 1896 as the cleveland home for aged colored people, is a comprehensive provider of senior services, including skilled nursing, adult day care, transportation, affordable senior housing, dialysis care and elder abuse relieve services.

What it reported doing in 2024

During 2024 eliza bryant village, established in 1896 as the cleveland home for aged colored people, effectively had only one program. This program provided mangement and oversight services to three housing entities that were partially funded by the federal department of housing and urban development (hud). These related entities are a combination of apartment style and condominium style housing units rented to qualifying individuals. The three entities are listed with hud as: (1.) ebc housing corporation, dba eliza bryant manor; (2.) ebc housing ii, dba eliza bryant garden estates; and (3.) ebc housing iii, dba amasa b. Ford lodge.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -210.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.85; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $605K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.