Miami Bayside Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592834504
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3053797070
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,258,727
Expenses
$1,812,871
Assets
$10,321,510
Liabilities
$3,225,030

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHLEEN MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DI): $197,000 total reported compensation
  • ALAN ALVAREZ (DIRECTOR ED): $64,570 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance the economic development of south Florida.

What it reported doing in 2025

Loan program for minority- and women-owned businesses in miami-dade, broward, and monroe counties. In 2025, eighteen loans were funded in the amount of 1,677,000. Scholarships for minority students in the city of miami and grants to educational programs for children and youth in the city of miami. In 2025, 248,823 was awarded in grants to organizations working with children and youth and 84,203 in direct scholarships to students as well as more than 250,000 in scholarships through other programs at colleges and universities. Technical assistance programs for minority- and women-owned businesses in miami-dade, broward, and monroe counties. In 2025, held 481 hours of technical assistance programming, graduating 214 business owners with 221,600 in grants to help the businesses implement assessed changes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 49th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -44%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.69; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $156K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.