Invest Detroit
Legal name: Invest Detroit Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271927369
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Detroit, MI, USA
- Phone
- 313.259.6368
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $32,419,547
- Expenses
- $22,165,504
- Assets
- $208,587,430
- Liabilities
- $64,115,511
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID BLASZKIEWICZ (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- PATRICIA GLAZA (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, VENTURE)
- MARTIN DOBER (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, VENTURE)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID BLASZKIEWICZ (PRESIDENT & CEO): $575,334 total reported compensation
- KEONA COWAN (CHIEF LENDING OFFICER): $305,619 total reported compensation
- PATRICIA GLAZA (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, VENTURE): $304,143 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Invest Detroit is a mission-driven financial institution that catalyzes equity, investment, and wealth generation. Through targeted capital deployment, strategic partnerships, and a history of executing in difficult development environments, Invest Detroit has become a central figure in the revitalization efforts in the City of Detroit and The State of Michigan for over 25 years.
What it reported doing in 2024
Supporting detroit economic development through real estate and small business support.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 31.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.41; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 56% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $575K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 32 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.