Greater Frogtown Community Development Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411804148
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- St Paul, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6512928710
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $230,580
- Expenses
- $80,302
- Assets
- $2,709,728
- Liabilities
- $115,900
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASON PETERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JASON PETERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $178,502 total reported compensation
- KJIRSTEN JOHNSON (CFO): $137,470 total reported compensation
- BETH HYSER (CPO): $104,180 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the organization is to take a comprehensive approach to development. It will emphasize affordable housing development for low to moderate income residents and lead in economic development and community building activities. Greater frogtown community development corporation (gfcdc) is a non-profit community development corporation formed in 1995 to strengthen the neighborhoods it serves by developing and rehabilitating high quality affordable housing. Gfcdc primarily works in the frogtown neighborhood of the city of st. Paul.
What it reported doing in 2023
For over 25 years, greater frogtown cdc has substantially renovated vacant homes and built new homes on vacant lots which we have sold to low-to-moderate income families, as defined by hud. Over that time, we have developed over 170 homes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 6.7%; rating input score 7
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
- 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: 65.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.74; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -19.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -18.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 6.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $80K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.