CCDC Property Management & Real Estate

Legal name: Christian County Integrated Community Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371410633
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Petersburg, IL, USA
Phone
217-824-4921
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,803,033
Expenses
$2,137,824
Assets
$17,172,266
Liabilities
$7,917,646

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARRY DALY (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS LATONIS (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JEFFREY COPLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY COPLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $192,302 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Affordable, quality housing brings security and stability to vulnerable families and helps to prevent homelessness. Contact us to find out how you can get involved in your community. Connect with Us. The high cost of housing often forces families to sacrifice critical needs like food, transportation or healthcare. But access to a decent, affordable home provides crucial stability to these families. It can improve quality of life, educational outcomes, economic security and even neighborhood property values. You can be part of the solution by partnering with us. In addition to the units owned by CCDC Property Management & Real Estate, we partner with owners to manage properties and to implement new housing development.

What it reported doing in 2018

Affordable housing was provided to over 500 individuals and families. Costs incurred were for management and maintenance employees, utilities, insurance, property taxes, and other occupancy costs to provide housing. At least 75% of the rental units were provided to residents that qualified as very low or low income. Income limits were per guidelines established by the u.s. Dept of housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% 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

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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.03; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 67.9% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 4 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.