Community Enhancement Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731221559
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4052397551
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,233,190
Expenses
$5,569,152
Assets
$37,927,700
Liabilities
$18,959,741

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK GILLETT (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • THOMAS HENDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW MILLS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KASSY MALONE (VICE PRESIDENT (END 3/2024))
  • GREGORY SHINN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK GILLETT (PRESIDENT/CEO): $280,070 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW MILLS (VICE PRESIDENT): $222,850 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS HENDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT): $221,952 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To expand the charitable housing programs offered to lower-income citizens of Oklahoma city, ok.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community enhancement corporation (cec) receives funds for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of low-income housing. In addition, cec receives section 8 housing assistance payments on units constructed with these funds to provide low-income housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 66% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.81; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.8% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $280K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.