Central Ohio Community Improvement

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043829443
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6147244937
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,406,142
Expenses
$10,589,909
Assets
$15,936,783
Liabilities
$6,313,155

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Curtiss L Williams (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Curtiss L Williams (Executive Director): $310,300 total reported compensation
  • Melissa Coleman (Asst Secretary): $123,006 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To stabilize or increase property values in areas of Franklin County suffering from the effects of blighted, vacant, abandoned, tax-foreclosed or economically-stranded properties and to promote and facilitate rehabilitation, reutilization and return to productive status.

What it reported doing in 2024

Redevelopment of distressed Properties; Strategic Reutilization, Trusted Partners, Responsible Landlord. A land reutilization program, conducted in collaboration with local government, and often involving the strategic conveyance of formerly blighted properties to responsible parties for re-use, all while balancing the competing goals of maximizing future tax revenues and other public benefits with the recovery of expenditures from grant and disposition proceeds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 33.8%; rating input score 34; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $310K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.7M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.