Community Capital Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 454561134
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 8165029584
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,904,769
- Expenses
- $2,841,378
- Assets
- $2,859,882
- Liabilities
- $1,347,035
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PHYLLIS HARDWICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- PHYLLIS HARDWICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $102,816 total reported compensation
- DEIDRE ANDERSON (PROJECT DIRECTOR): $102,219 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide grants, technical assistance, and coaching to support under-resourced neighborhoods and businesses in the greater Kansas city metropolitan are, helping to advance asset based community development and increase financial, human, and socal capital.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community leads and healthy neighborhoods we supported efforts to improve quality of life in low to moderate income communities in the kc metro neighborhood revitalization fund awarded grants to 42 community organizations for neighborhood revitalization and capacity building community wellness advocates awarded 95k in stipends to promote health initiatives continued to host free community development workshop for neighborhood leaders, govt officials, nonprofit staff, and area residents focusing on capacity building and community development efforts provided fiscal sponsorship for 23 mission aligned organizations and launched nonprofit founders bootcamp for small nonprofit organzations with annual budgets under 25k - we engaged 25 nonprofit leaders and 24 mentors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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: 39
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 38.3%; rating input score 38
- Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 81.3%; rating input score 81; 22nd 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: 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 27.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 38.3% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 30 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 28 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.