Downtown Detroit Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383436456
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3135668250
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,783,286
Expenses
$22,717,587
Assets
$8,194,430
Liabilities
$5,686,919

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

Leadership & pay

61 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC B LARSON (CEO)
  • CARI EASTERDAY-KAR (VICE PRESIDENT/CFO/ASST TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC B LARSON (CEO): $518,863 total reported compensation
  • GINA CAVILERE (CHIEF COMMUNITY IMPACT OFFICER): $241,626 total reported compensation
  • RYAN EPSTEIN (OPERATIONS MANAGER): $176,547 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to advance detroit by driving engagement, development and programs that benefit businesses, residents and visitors throughout the downtown's urban core. We strengthen and support downtown detroit through strategic initiatives and programs that evolve with the changing needs of the community. Ddp convenes business, philanthropic and government partners to ensure that efforts in the creation of a vibrant urban core for detroit are balanced and all perspectives are considered.

What it reported doing in 2024

Michigan strategic fund revitalization and placemaking programin january 2023, ddp received a reimbursement grant award from the Michigan strategic fund in the amount of $13,740,000 to support capital improvements of eight (8) projects throughout downtown detroit. The projects include two (2) real estate developments and six (6) public space projects. Ddp is the administrator of these projects and has, separately, enter into sub-grant agreements with sub-grantees. The grant is a multi-year commitment which will be fully expended by december 31, 2026.

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 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $43.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -4.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 51 of 53 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $19.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $519K · 61 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.4M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.