Coraopolis Community Development Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205398661
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Coraopolis, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4123297660
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,071,910
- Expenses
- $523,864
- Assets
- $3,340,179
- Liabilities
- $828,532
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RANDON WILLARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MICHAEL FINNELL (PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
- DAVID DEMAREE (VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
Highest reported compensation
- RANDON WILLARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $78,600 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 serve the community of coraopolis pa, encouraging and assisting in renewal through community service and development projects, providing relief, resources and redevelopment.
What it reported doing in 2024
The coraopolis food pantry began in 2011 when the bus to moon township stopped running and the ccdc began seeing an increase in clients in need of food. The pantry began as a "grocery store" that allowed clients to shop for the food they needed. The pantry began by serving 35 families a month and now serves over 400 families each month. Due to covid-19, the pantry is now drive-up only. The coraopolis food pantry is a member agency of the greater pittsburgh community food bank (gpcfb). The ccdc purchases food at a discounted rate from the gpcfb and participates in food safety trainings to ensure the highest standards for our pantry. The food pantry serves coraopolis, moon township, neville island, crescent township, and groveton. This program includes food pantry and snack pack program
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 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 38
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 25.9%; rating input score 26
- Program expense ratio: 53.1%; rating input score 53
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 61.7%; rating input score 62; 31st 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 51.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.38; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 25.9% of revenue deployed · 53.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $278K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.