Community Development Projects Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330677892
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Poway, CA, USA
Phone
8585131847
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$966,943
Expenses
$975,507
Assets
$424,378
Liabilities
$3,206

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paula Claussen (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Paula Claussen (President): $30,000 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 goal of Project Mercy is the improvement of basic living standards and quality of life for impoverished families who live in conditions precarious to their health in the shantytowns of the colonias east of Tijuana, Mexico.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project Mercy provided materials and constructed 78 houses in 2024. These were wood rame houses with painted plywood exterior built on 16 ft by 20 ft concrete slabs. In addition, Project Mercy provided materials to construct 78 outhouse latrines. These comprise a concrete block contained latrine pit and a wooden outhouse, with ceramic toilets. Donation of food, school supplies and furnishings were also made to the same general community, as well as a small amount of medical aid where needed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $895K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.