Community Investment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860837146
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5205291766
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,120,404
Expenses
$3,650,159
Assets
$5,829,684
Liabilities
$3,085,358

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL KNEE (EXECUTIVE DI): $134,262 total reported compensation
  • CAROLINE NELSON (CHIEF OPERAT): $111,368 total reported compensation
  • BETTY VINALL (CHIEF BUSINE): $80,245 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 create a better life for the residents of our community through various programs targeting economic development opportunities. To secure strategic investments in our communities that serve public purpose, enhance employment opportunities, and leverage its capital with a reasonable rate of return.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cic's home ownership support services empower first-time homebuyers across Arizona, particularly in pima county, by providing essential financial assistance. Through our mortgage credit certificate (mcc) program, income- qualified buyers can reduce their annual mortgage interest by claiming up to 2,000 as a federal tax credit. This benefit is renewable each year, adding up to potential savings of over 50,000 across the life of the mortgage. The mcc program is funded by the pima county industrial development authority. In addition to the mcc program, we administer down payment assistance programs in tucson and pima county. Cic also serves as the fiscal agent for city of tucson processing payments for contracts that support work for homelessness diversion and prevention.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.6% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.