Solidarity Bridge Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364481213
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Evanston, IL, USA
Phone
8473287748
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Rehabilitative Medical Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,040,893
Expenses
$2,694,192
Assets
$1,921,914
Liabilities
$68,944

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN RHOMBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN RHOMBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,938 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Solidarity Bridge is a nonprofit based in Evanston, IL doing work in Latin America. In a spirit of solidarity, we partner with communities in Boliva and Paraguay to increase access to safe, affordable surgery and other essential health care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Solidarity Bridge provides critical medical care and Fair Trade commerce for impoverished people of Bolivia and Paraguay. In 2024, 961 patients were treated. A total of 444 surgeries (including heart, gyne, neuro, and general surgeries) were made possible through the financial, material and managerial support of Solidarity Bridge. Surgeries were performed in year-round programs. We donated services and equipment/supplies valued over $1.3 million. Additionally, our Fair Trade Program Project provided a living wage to dozens of workers in cooperatives via $38,535 in wages paid to them for exports to USA markets.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 10.3%; rating input score 10; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.