Friends of Two Bridges

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263198517
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5035857751
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$212
Expenses
$123,329
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAZEL PATTON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HAZEL PATTON (PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG PARHAM (TREASURER)
  • ELLEN MILLER (SECRETARY)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To benefit the public good by providing recreational opportunities and enjoyment to the citizens of the salem area and to our visitors in the region.

What it reported doing in 2017

To promote and assist in the project development and ongoing support of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting salem's riverfront park pathways & minto brown island park pathways, and the ongoing support of the conversion of the historic union street railroad bridge into a bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting salem's riverfront park pathways with wallace marine park pathways.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58,074.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.