Manchester Bidwell Development Trust
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311601556
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4123234000
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $151,321
- Expenses
- $218,463
- Assets
- $13,161,892
- Liabilities
- $7,321,444
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEVIN JENKINS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- WILLIAM E STRICKLAND JR (FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE CHAIR (EXIT 1/25)): $310,725 total reported compensation
- KEVIN JENKINS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $301,208 total reported compensation
- MARA BRUCE (VP & CFO): $182,092 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See statement omanchester bidwell development trust (mbdt) was formed to establish endowments to secure and sustain the programs of manchester craftsmen's guild and bidwell training center. Mbdt supports continued community revitalization through excellence and innovation in enterprise and program development.
What it reported doing in 2024
Manchester bidwell development trust (mbdt) has established and oversees the investments and endowments for manchester bidwell corporation and on behalf of manchester craftsmen's guild and bidwell training center, which are exempt charitable organizations, to secure and sustain their programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 49.4%; rating input score 49
- Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -44.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 60.25; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 49.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $108K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $311K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.