Footbridge for Families Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842077025
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Monroeville, PA, USA
Phone
4123882683
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,014,384
Expenses
$1,514,987
Assets
$1,571,504
Liabilities
$35,559

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kim Eckel (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Eckel (President & CEO): $112,731 total reported compensation
  • Jeff Wolstoncroft (CFO): $20,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Footbridge provides rapid financial support to families in crisis, paying third-party vendors within hours to prevent eviction, utility shut-offs, job loss, missed medical care, and child welfare involvement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Footbridges Case Coordination program fills critical gaps not covered by community or government resources to resolve short-term financial crises and prevent escalation. Referral Partner organizations connect us with families facing urgent hardships with no other solution. Once a case is accepted, Footbridge case coordinators assess household stability, prioritize the most emergent needs, and pay third-party vendors as quickly as necessary to restore stability and prevent further consequences. In 2025, Footbridge issued 965 payments totaling $1,008,185.17 to third-party vendors on behalf of 698 individuals and families. This included 393 housing payments totaling $646,212.80, stabilizing housing for 941 children and youth; 431 utility payments totaling $220,888.86 to prevent shutoffs or restore service; and 102 transportation payments totaling $111,409.99 to repair vehicles or prevent repossession for clients who rely on transportation to maintain employment. Remaining funds supported urgent health, safety, and employment- related needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $91.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 48.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 31 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.