Molo Village Cdc Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275347893
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5024178438
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,427,119
Expenses
$1,037,738
Assets
$7,900,403
Liabilities
$7,069,285

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REV DR JAMESETTA FERGUSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • THOMAS WILLIAMS SR (VICE PRESIDENT & TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • REV DR JAMESETTA FERGUSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $75,000 total reported compensation
  • DONANNE FITZGERALD (BOARD MEMBER (PRIOR)): $5,404 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS WILLIAMS SR (VICE PRESIDENT & TREASURER): $2,925 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support individuals and families whom reside in the russell community of west louisville, Kentucky by providing reintegration services to returning citizens, supporting the holistic health of all community members, empowering residents to develop (see schedule o) and implement their own individualized self-improvement plans, and meeting the needs of russell's youth and senior adults through programming, activities, and referrals.

What it reported doing in 2025

To support individuals and families whom reside in the russell community of west louisville, Kentucky by providing reintegration services to returning citizens, supporting the holistic health of all community members, empowering residents to develop and and implement their own individualized self-improvement plans, and meeting the needs of russell's youth and senior adults through programming, activities, and referrals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.8%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $902.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 57.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.61; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.8% of revenue deployed · 57.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $601K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 25/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.