Little City for Community Development
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363296351
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Inverness, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8472217819
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,170,076
- Expenses
- $1,226,676
- Assets
- $4,316,370
- Liabilities
- $7,684,536
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GREGORY BURNS (PRESIDENT)
- AMAR KAPADIA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- B TIMOTHY DESMOND (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JENNIFER GAVELEK (VICE PRESIDENT)
- MARIE NEWMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7/23-2/24)
- RICHARD BOBBY III (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BEGAN 2/24)
Highest reported compensation
- MARIE NEWMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7/23-2/24): $200,540 total reported compensation
- RICHARD BOBBY III (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BEGAN 2/24): $178,380 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $176,073 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide individuals who have developmental disabilities with low income housing and services designed to meet their individual needs
What it reported doing in 2023
Little city for community development provides low income housing to adults with developmental disabilities. There are three eight-unit group homes in the local community and 54 apartment units in three buildings known as the port family center. During fiscal 2023, 365 days of service were provided resulting in 25,343 units of program service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.6%; rating input score 98
- Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- 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: Limited
- 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: -4.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.52; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.78; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 97.6% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.