Legacy Redevelopment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311724109
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4143430163
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Housing Rehabilitation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,366,182
Expenses
$1,911,924
Assets
$11,440,598
Liabilities
$8,335,384

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERESE CARO (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERESE CARO (CEO): $143,607 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Legacy redevelopment corporation (lrc) is a non-profit community development financial institution (cdfi) revolving loan fund whose mission is to enhance neighborhood vitality, facilitate a sustainable and economically diverse community, and build wealth through the design and implementation of innovative finance programs in the city of milwaukee.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legacy redevelopment corporation (lrc) continued to provide loan capital and technical assistance to its loan clients with the goal to strengthen the businesses in the areas where improvements were identified. Job retention and creation was attained in addition to working with minority owned businesses as a focus of our mission. The goal is to get the loan clients bankable. In 2024, lrc provided loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations injected into disadvantaged communities and to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (sedi). The loan portfolio is comprised of direct lending to diverse industries of small businesses including the expansion into the racine market. Lrc has continued to be a community partner with the greater milwaukee foundation, expanding our reach to early childhood education small businesses. In addition, we've partnered with another local cdfi on a project that will provide affordable groceries in a food desert in a challenged area of milwaukee. The project will provide job's and housing. Over 95% of the loans serve the low to moderate income community. We provided one-on-one technical assistance (ta) to business startups and expansions that are customized to the needs of the borrowers. The ta provided ranged from financial education to succession planning.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Liabilities are high compared with assets and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $209.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.2%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.98; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.2% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $144K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 29 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 — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.