Crown Community Development Corporation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474249299
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3173408423
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$418,015
Expenses
$580,788
Assets
$108,163
Liabilities
$10,988

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD REYNOLDS (CEO)
  • JANICE COX (Vice President)
  • EZELL MOORE (President of Board)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD REYNOLDS (CEO): $200,724 total reported compensation
  • JANICE COX (Vice President): $45,830 total reported compensation
  • TONYA REYNOLDS (Program Support): $20,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We provide mentoring & character building services for low performing and high poverty rated elementary school students twice per week during a 12 week period in the fall and spring

What it reported doing in 2024

Served over 2400 youth and families in Indianapolis since 2015 through collaborative partnerships with the Metropolitan School Distric of Lawrence Township, several Indianapolis Public School, Edna Martin Christian Center, New Diection Church, and several other strateic partners. Mentors have logged over 18,000 hours in over 3,100 session Program participants and family members have been inspired and motivated through varions experiences to include the Underground Railroad Museum, Muhammad Ali Museum, several university tours, and many other events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -38.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 72.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.