Community Action Development Corporation of the Lehigh Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232735252
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Phone
6106915620
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$916,060
Expenses
$878,761
Assets
$1,255,012
Liabilities
$432,986

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAWN GODSHALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STEPHEN BROOME (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KATHERINE DUQUE (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAWN GODSHALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $227,828 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA M REIMERT (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $148,192 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN BROOME (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $120,448 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the community action development corporation of the lehigh valley is to elevate and empower residents by actively promoting neighborhood revitalization which strengthens the neighborhood economy, improves the quality of life and is inclusive of all residents.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cadca completed the third year of the allentown's core neighborhood partnership program in collaboration with multiple "youth serving" community partners. Collaborated with the freedom school partnerhsip to improve reading literacy for elementary and middle school students. Partnered with the city of allentown's law enforcement staff in engaging middle school students from the allentown school district (asd) to examine careers in law enforcement. Partnered with the fine feather foundation and the lehigh valley arts and cultural alliance to conduct an eight week summer camp which featured arts, dance, vocal workshops and field trips. The summer camp also featured students creating a mural in downtown allentown. High school students from asd participated in a college tour, an sat prep course and a college workshop.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $815K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $228K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.