The Nomadic Bridge Inc Fka Home Ec Woodstock and Animal Welfare
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 833592897
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Woodstock, NY, USA
- Phone
- 9175024025
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $417,825
- Expenses
- $285,575
- Assets
- $135,865
- Liabilities
- $15,172
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BARTON BROOKS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- BARTON BROOKS (PRESIDENT): $15,000 total reported compensation
- GREGG GOODBROD (TREASURER / DIR OF FACILITIES): $15,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
After several years of operation, the board members of the nomadic bridge (formerly home ec woodstock and animal welfare) have recognized the enormous potential to broaden our mission. While our local programs have remained intentionally small due to limited capacity, and focused solely on farm animals, our supporters have increasingly encouraged us to extend our reach. In response, we began forming partnerships with other sanctuaries and humanitarian relief organizations throughout the united states and abroad. These collaborations have allowed us to expand donations, share knowledge, strengthen best practices, and ultimately save more animals from cruelty and neglect. It also allowed us to address humanitarian needs by bridging resource and volunteer gaps.
What it reported doing in 2024
Animal welfare, humanitarian, and environmental assistancethis year we expanded our mission to include other sanctuaries and animal welfare organizations, we were able to create positive change in communities from europe to indonesia. With lebenshof odenwald in germany, the premier farm sanctuary in europe, we were able to secure funding for a new enclosure for their goats, pay vet bills for chickens and ducks, as well provide them with weeks of volunteer labor and sharing best practices. We took that knowledge to england to assist little cage fighters, a chicken welfare group working on rehoming battery hens, and we were able to fund a new emergency clinic, as well as ten days of volunteer work rehoming seventy-five ex-battery hens. Working with the angkor centre for conservation of biodiversity (accb), and were able to provide days of volunteering, as well as fund their labor costs to complete their breeding enclosure for the nearly extinct white shouldered ibis. The accb is recognized globally as one of the few organizations with successful breeding programs for the ibis and various nearly extinct turtles, and we were fortunate to fund and assist with their work. We partnered with paw patrol cambodia, providing a month's worth of dog food, paid off their vet bills, and secured forever homes for four dogs - preventing them from being killed in the illegal dog meat trade. We provided a local vet to get the dogs cleared for international travel, and provided them with safe passage to their new homes in the USA. We worked in indonesia with three other street dog organizations, paying off vet bills and volunteering in the rescue facilities.in malaysia we met the head conservationist for malaysian sun bears, world renowned wong siew te. Dr. Wong has singlehandedly brought these bears back from the brink of extinction, and while there, we were able to fund new fencing to further strengthen their protective enclosure. We also planted three acres of trees in borneo with our new partner ape malaysia.we were able reforest one acre of land working with my forest armenia in gugark, armenia. We also provided one month of food and medical assistance for 120 ukrainian refugees living in Georgia, and provided funding for a women's shelter serving hundreds of abused women in istanbul. In laos, working with a local partner and public library, we were able to create a six week summer program for 250 children in luang prabang, providing summer school education, meals, and enrichment programs. We were also able to provide a year's worth of school supplies to five village schools on the outskirts of town, filling each classroom with books and all needed materials for 116 children, as well as teaching materials for each teacher. We took this idea to cambodia where we provided the same types of books and materials, filling all requests of three village schools on the outskirts of siem reap.we were on the ground in sapa, vietnam for typhoon yagi, and after overwhelming devastation, we were able to rebuild a village library, and build homes for three extended families, providing permanent shelter for 76 people. We also met the immediate needs of over one hundred villagers, providing winter clothing, blankets, and emergency aid - including rice and provisions - before international aid organizations arrived for long term support.working with schools and groups devoted to disabled children in bali, we were able to provide every bit of therapy equipment one school requested for over 300 disabled children. We partnered with bali orphan day center to give thirty five orphan kids their first ever field trip to the beach, where we had surf instructors, community involvement, and began a young mentorship program. We were also able to provide a scholarship of school funding and new computer to a well deserving graduate student, and a motorcycle for a young couple to get to and from work.in anticipation for further collaboration, we funded and began new partne
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 49
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.2%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Pass
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 49.2%; rating input score 49; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 31.7%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 141.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 198.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 59.2% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $247K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $15K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.