Community Development Corporation of Utah

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870476889
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8019947222
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,303,815
Expenses
$16,383,364
Assets
$16,583,777
Liabilities
$13,529,775

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT ROBERTS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN PEEL (PRESIDENT & SECRETARY)
  • J TODD REEDER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • J TODD REEDER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $181,361 total reported compensation
  • SARAH BEAUMONT (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $143,915 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 community development corporation of Utah (cdcu) helps our community thrive by empowering people on their path toward financial security, housing stability, and access to affordable homes.we achieve this by:1. Increasing financial knowledge and skills through education and coaching2. Providing housing-related financial assistance and loan products that are accessible to lower income utahns3. Developing and preserving affordable homes to own and rent

What it reported doing in 2024

Homebuyer education and foreclosure mitigation counseling provided financial education and counseling services to 817 low- to moderate-income households (2,563 individuals) to enable them to become and remain successful homeowners. Provided foreclosure prevention and loan mitigation to families to prevent foreclosure on their homes during times of crisis. These services are provided at no cost to the program participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $260.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: -0.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.4% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $16.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $205K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.