Community Partnership Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133582492
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6462173370
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$94,245
Expenses
$74,181
Assets
$4,600,841
Liabilities
$1,816,746

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMIE SMARR (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • NADJA ALVARADO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHELIA MARTIN (VICE PRESIDENT THRU 01/2024)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMIE SMARR (PRESIDENT & CEO): $444,224 total reported compensation
  • THERESA OMANSKY (SECRETARY): $305,830 total reported compensation
  • ADAM GOLD (TREASURER): $263,569 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 organization's mission is to lessen the burden of the government, act in the public interest and to promote and provide for additional and maximum employment, thereby bettering and maintaining job opportunities and relieving and reducing unemployment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cpdc is a not-for-profit local development corporation incorporated in the state of New York, it is a certified community development financial institution ("cdfi"). Cpdc administers loans to help cover certain development costs incurred in developing housing on various sites located throughout New York city. Cpdc administers the cpdc New York city department of housing preservation and development (hpd)/urban development action grant (udag) loan fund to help small, minority owned and women owned builders cover development and predevelopment costs, its own seed loan fund and seed loans from the New York state division of housing and community renewal ("dhcr") to support the predevelopment work of housing sites. In 2009, cpdc was designated a community housing development organization ("chdo"). This designation enables it to access funding through the division of housing and community renewal. These funds flow through cpdc as intermediary to designated organizations.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 51
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 21.3%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 62.02; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 213.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $444K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 284 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.