Mdcdc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810729268
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9015524781
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,873,133
Expenses
$4,400,756
Assets
$6,647,078
Liabilities
$1,308,877

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rory Thomas (President & CEO)
  • Keesa Mitchell (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rory Thomas (President & CEO): $198,164 total reported compensation
  • Keesa Mitchell (Vice President): $138,005 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Memphis Medical District Collaborative (MDCDC) is a community development organization.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organizations purpose is to make the Memphis Medical District more vibrant, prosperous, equitable. The organization was formed to provide community development and revitalization of the Memphis Medical District and surrounding areas through real estate development, economic development, business attraction, job grouwth, enchancement of safety and security, cleaning and landscaping, marketing and coordination amoung area institutios, organizations, government enitities business and residents. There were 33,058 employees, students, residents and business benefited.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: 52.7%; rating input score 53; 21st 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: 25.1%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.51; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.4% of revenue deployed · 66.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • 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 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.