Frederick Douglas Community Development Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161472632
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5855464701
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $62,725
- Expenses
- $90,978
- Assets
- $12,666
- Liabilities
- $6,112
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Reverend Errol E Hunt (President)
People named in this filing
- Reverend Errol E Hunt (President)
- Mordecai Jones (Treasurer)
- Richard Sarkis (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Oversee management of affordable housing units.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization provides management/administrative services for two affordable housing projects, Frederick Douglass Housing Development Fund Corporation and Daisy Housing Development Fund Corporation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 12
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 48.6%; rating input score 49
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -45%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 33%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 48.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $44K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.