NZBC Urban Corporation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522040415
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Bossier City, LA, USA
Phone
3187460750
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$287,144
Expenses
$299,886
Assets
$17,343
Liabilities
$60,690

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Vincent Kemp (President)

People named in this filing

  • Vincent Kemp (President)
  • Aleishea Tucke (Secretary)
  • Harold Pettewa (Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization primary mission is to provide education experience, nutrition, child care, employment training and transportation to low income residents of Bossier City, LA

What it reported doing in 2015

These revenues and expenses were all incurred for the orgnaization

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 90
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.4%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.5; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 48% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -101.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $300K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.