Greater Rapid City Area Economic Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460414080
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Rapid City, SD, USA
Phone
6053431880
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$686,322
Expenses
$710,552
Assets
$4,774,445
Liabilities
$237,992

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENJAMIN SNOW (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN SNOW (PRESIDENT): $177,196 total reported compensation
  • JEFF HAVERLY (EXECUTIVE DI): $7,292 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the quality of life and increase personal income levels in the rapid city area by fostering a vital business climate which provides quality new jobs, attracts new business, helps existing business and promotes entrepreneurship.

What it reported doing in 2018

Improved the quality of life and increased personal income levels in the greater rapid city area by: 1. Fostering a vital business climate 2. Helping to develop quality new jobs 3. Attracting new business 4. Assisting existing businesses 5. Promoting entrepreneurship we achieved these goals using the following tools: 1. Utilizing a revolving loan fund based on the creation of quality jobs 2. Tracking commercial real estate availability and development 3. Making business retention and expansion visits 4. Meeting and working with leaders in government, education, and business 5. Speaking to community groups to promote the area 6. Attending select trade shows in targeted industries in turn the above generates interest income from loans to qualifying organizations and administrative fees for those charged for our services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.72; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 28 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.