Christian County Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364548312
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Springfield, IL, USA
Phone
2178244921
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$618,412
Expenses
$647,510
Assets
$31,883
Liabilities
$60,981

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK GLEASON (EXEC DIR (MAY - SEPT)): $44,272 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The ccdc provides services, training and housing, and promotes the development, establishment and expansion of industries for low and moderate-income families.

What it reported doing in 2018

Provides management and maintenance services to lihtc, section 8, alf & slf projects throughout christian county and surrounding counties.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 20
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.1%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 22.1%; rating input score 22
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.91; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.1% of revenue deployed · 22.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $143K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.