The Bridge House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743094189
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5016269515
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$57,489
Expenses
$28,799
Assets
$1,162,011
Liabilities
$102,400

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD KALKBRENNER (VICE-CHAIR): $2,965 total reported compensation
  • KAREN PROETZ (TREASURER): $865 total reported compensation
  • FRAN COCKCROFT (DIRECTOR): $720 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 organization provided instruction to the mature adult population of central Arkansas for the purpose of developing, improving and extending their mental capabilities of memory and logic thru their senior years; this was accomplished through formal training courses , informal instruction, mentor-guidance and practice of competitive contract bridge.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization has only one program service area, namely the providing of formal training courses, informal instruction, mentor-guidance and practice of competitive contract bridge for the purpose of improvement of mental agility during the senior years of citizens. The organization expended 19,862 in direct expenses related to the formal training. These expenses were for advertising for students, purchase of textbooks and other training materials, and fees paid to contract instructors. Revenue from the activity was 18,851. In addition, the facility was used for practice in the activity with a net loss of 16,038. Indirect expenses included office expenses (329), depreciation (6,334) and fund raising expenses(2,274). Some of the cost for student advertising were underwrutten by the american contract bridge league(1,598). There were no other service areas, as the organization has just a single purposes as outlined in item 1 above.

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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.3%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 40.35; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.3% of revenue deployed · 69% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.