Community Development Corporation of Oregon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461475038
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Gresham, OR, USA
Phone
5033805827
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,497,038
Expenses
$8,787,108
Assets
$11,422,200
Liabilities
$6,123,480

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRAD KETCH (PRESIDENT)
  • HAI NGUYEN (PRESIDENT OF ECH HOUSING)
  • LYNN KETCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRAD KETCH (PRESIDENT): $154,644 total reported compensation
  • HAI NGUYEN (PRESIDENT OF ECH HOUSING): $137,594 total reported compensation
  • LYNN KETCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $109,435 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We serve as a hub or backbone to provide ladders forclimbing from poverty to prosperity improving health outcomes, creating public-private partnerships, expanding the supply of economical housing, and encouraging and assisting commercial development.

What it reported doing in 2025

Houseless transition services food rent support and health support

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 54.5%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $60.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 70.6%; rating input score 71; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.3% of revenue deployed · 54.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 7 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 45 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompDisqualPersons column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • 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 — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.