Campus District Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341387460
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2168150150
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$633,659
Expenses
$1,096,858
Assets
$245,856
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Lammon (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Lammon (Executive Director): $265,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Campus District connects Cleveland's downtown campuses including Cleveland State University, Cuyahoga Community College Metro Campus, Sisters of Charity Health System, and Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority by leading, providing and promoting community development services. Campus District gives people from all walks of life a place to live, learn, build businesses, produce artistry, and access quality care. Founded in 1983 by three of downtown Cleveland's anchor institutions, we work to create conditions that fuel our vibrant and resilient community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Administration and implementation of programs under the umbrella of the For Arts Sake program for the Superior Arts Improvement District. This included development of programs for artists living and working in the Superior Arts District and creation of the Superior Arts Improvement District Master Plan. Programs for the District include the Clean and Safe program, the Place Making and Mural Match programs, landscaping along Superior Avenue and maintenance of the landscaping on East 22nd Street.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Affiliate network. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending through affiliated organizations.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -73.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.