Phoenix Bikes

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208842260
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7035757762
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreation& Sports N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$668,443
Expenses
$626,788
Assets
$527,377
Liabilities
$4,841

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS SHANNON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • EMILY GAGE (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMILY GAGE (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,426 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS SHANNON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $3,958 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Harnessing the power of bikes to help youth build passion, purpose and a place in the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Job training and shop operations: the bike shop serves as a venue for teaching youth basic business and job skills, including customer service and the economics of bicycle repair and sales. In addition to training youth volunteers, we trained five paid high school interns who helped run our full-service bike shop. In the shop, we worked hard to keep biking accessible to all by offering one of the most affordable selections of both used bikes and bike parts in the dc metro area and by providing low-cost, high quality customer repairs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $458K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.