Antioch Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223638935
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Camden, NJ, USA
Phone
8569661785
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Child Day Care

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,785
Expenses
$218,857
Assets
$5,992
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EUGENE ALFORD (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • EUGENE ALFORD (PRESIDENT)
  • CLARENCE H BAGWELL (TREASURER)
  • JOHN O PARKER (CHAIRMAN)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization seeks to effect a positive change in the community through the development of affordable housing and implementation of programs to promote self-sufficiency within individuals and families in camden county.

What it reported doing in 2017

Sponsored various activities and events geared towards youth to provide recreational and educational opportunities. Camden, New Jersey suffers from crime, high unemployment, and other negative social and economic factors that have had a devastating effect on the city's 20,000 school children. Research suggests that delaying a child's first use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs can reduce the risk of later abuse. These targeted activities strive to connect people and resources with effective and innovative programs aimed at reducing substance abuse and juvenile delinquency in the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,611.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 64.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -39.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $217K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.