Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority (SCIDpda)

Legal name: Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Assoc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911645126
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
206-838-8238
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,685,711
Expenses
$1,126,728
Assets
$1,224,200
Liabilities
$637,294

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JARED JONSON (CO-EXEC DIRE): $175,359 total reported compensation
  • JAMIE LEE (CO-EXEC DIRE): $167,654 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 preserve, promote, and develop the Seattle Chinatown International District (CID) as a vibrant community and unique ethnic neighborhood.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cidpda raised contributions and pledges for the development, construction, and operation of various community-based projects sponsored by the scidpda. Facilities include multifamily housing, childcare, small business technical assistance, and resident services for low-income immigrants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 66.2% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 6 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.