Western New York Chapter of the Association for Bridge Construction and Design
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161543497
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5853143115
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $80,981
- Expenses
- $81,962
- Assets
- $76,245
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Rebecca Stump (President)
- Nick Barnhard (Vice President)
- Emily Smith (Immediate Past President)
People named in this filing
- Rebecca Stump (President)
- Nick Barnhard (Vice President)
- Eric Yahn (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To further educate bridge designers, constructors, federal, state, local officials, and the general public in the vital role of bridges in our society. To improve and encourage the science of bridge design, construction, maintenance, and reconstruction by providing a forum for members to exchange and develop new ideas and techniques. To provide technical information and assistance to various public and private authorities for bridge programs, and to further educate and encourage public and private authorities in new and improved techniques for testing and reconstruction of bridge structures to promote the public welfare.
What it reported doing in 2025
Providing forums necessary to exchange ideas and techniques relating to bridge construction, provide technical information and assistance as well as basic education related to operation, testing and reconstruction of bridges.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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: 82
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -43.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.