Community Economics Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942473882
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108328300
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,231,518
Expenses
$1,298,715
Assets
$1,371,453
Liabilities
$644,471

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROY LINTON SCHWEYER (PRESIDENT)
  • GISELA SALGADO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELISSA DENNIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELISSA DENNIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $307,565 total reported compensation
  • DIANA DOWNTON (SR AFFORDABLE HSG FIN. CONSULTANT): $267,680 total reported compensation
  • LINDA RIVERS (OFFICE MANAGER): $192,288 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Community economics, inc.'s mission is to increase the supply of permanently affordable housing serving the lowest income households. Cei will undertake this mission through (1) the provision of technical assistance in the development and financing of permanently affordable housing to nonprofit developers, public agencies, and tenant organizations; and (2) education, research, and policy development with housing advocates, public policy makers, and the lending and investment community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Technical assistance is provided to non-profit community-based organizations and public agencies in the areas of: development, maintenance, and management of low-income housing including subsidized housing; community-based real estate development; and community-based economic development. Publications such as feasibility studies and manual are written and distributed at cost.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.9%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 64.7%; rating input score 65; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.9% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.