Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311595197
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142286488
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$270,168
Expenses
$319,090
Assets
$418,919
Liabilities
$71,985

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN LABITUE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • IAN LABITUE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MATTHEW MARTIN (BOARD CHAIR)
  • HOPE PAXSON (VICE CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To strengthen the capacity of community development corporations (cdcs) to serve as leaders in neighborhood revitalization initiatives that meet community needs in a way that measurably improves residents' quality of life. Stimulate system, development and change resulting in strong, durable cdcs capable of accomplishing specific demonstrable and significant objectives in the areas of affordable housing, economic development, community safety and other aspects of community building.promote the community development industry as an effective vehicle for transforming columbus' distressed neighborhoods into vibrant, sustainable communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

The collaborative was established in 1992 and became an independent nonprofit organization in 1998. The program's purpose is to strengthen the capacity of community development corporations (cdcs) to develop affordable housing and revitalize distressed communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $302K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.