Dallas Development Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264342371
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2146701222
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$708,840
Expenses
$477,837
Assets
$6,208,168
Liabilities
$491,241

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DREXELL OWUSU (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEATHER LEPESKA (SECRETARY): $179,213 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe dallas development fund is organized for the purpose of aiding, assisting, and acting on behalf of the city of dallas, Texas in the the performance of its governmental functions to promote the common good and general welfare of the city, including, without limitiation, for the benefit of, and to assist in carrying out the economic development program and objectives of the city by generating private investment capital through the new markets tax credit program to be made available for investment in low-income communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule oto assist in carrying out the economic development program and objectives of the city of dallas, Texas by generating private investment capital through the new markets tax credit program to be made available for investment in low-income communities. The organization has received $240 million of new markets tax credit allocation to date. This resource is being used to provide capital to job-generating economic development projects within the economically distressed areas of dallas, particularly in southern dallas. These strategies complement existing city efforts to combat uneven development patterns that have historically concentrated new commercial activity in north dallas, and to use transit-oriented development principles to create accessible urban village centers in disinvested neighborhoods. Ddf's financing products feature such attributes as below-market interest rates, higher than typical loan-to-value ratios, and/or provision of equity. To date, ddf has closed $229 million in nmtc financing as of 9/30/2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% 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 - Most voting board members are independent 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: 21
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.9%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 31.1%; rating input score 31
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.99; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19.9% of revenue deployed · 31.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $148K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $313K reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 21 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.