Mission Hills Bid

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141912951
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
6195599502
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$213,817
Expenses
$193,229
Assets
$30,261
Liabilities
$7,599

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMAAL JACKSON (President)
  • J DANIEL GEDDIS (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN MCNEIL SCHREYER (Executive Dir.): $83,375 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Mission Hills Improvement District was organized and established through the combined efforts of the local business owners and the City of San Diego's Community and Economic Development Department in March of 2004.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of the Mission Hills BID is to improve the overall business climate ofthe commercial area through a committee system that includes: Promotions, EconomicDevelopment, Design, and Mission Hills Parking Advisory committees.The Mission Hills BID consists of more than 500 business license holders within thegeographic boundaries of West Lewis Street, Fort Stockton Drive and Goldfinch Street, the West Washington Street and University Avenue corridors, Reynard Way and India Streets International Restaurant Row.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.5%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 71.4%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.5% of revenue deployed · 71.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.