East Baltimore Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270037508
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Baltimore, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4102340660
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,638,719
- Expenses
- $3,273,193
- Assets
- $18,840,694
- Liabilities
- $1,401,928
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHERYL WASHINGTON (PRESIDENT AN)
Highest reported compensation
- KAREN JOHNSON (CHF REAL EST): $290,131 total reported compensation
- CHERYL WASHINGTON (PRESIDENT AN): $275,643 total reported compensation
- LISE SANDERS (VP FINANCE &): $221,862 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ebdi's mission is to successfully attract market-oriented investment, development, population and enterprise to the east baltimore community while equipping community residents with the skills, information, and resources they need to benefit from new housing, employment, business, and and educational opportunities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ebdi worked with developers, the city of baltimore, and the state of Maryland to complete pre-development activities necessary to make way for four new residential development projects that will yield over 500 units of market-rate and affordable rental and for-sale homes. In addition, the development of the next commercial/lab building is underway and the site for a future grocery store/mixed use development has been identified. Ebdi ultimately plans to build an additional 500 units of mixed-income housing along with two to three additional commercial buildings and a parking garage over the next 10 years. Ebdi considers its approach to be "responsible redevelopment" with a focus on economic and community development efforts that are inclusive and mitigate the effects of gentrification.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -24%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.76; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -22.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 94% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.