North & East Lubbock Community Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710961103
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Lubbock, TX, USA
Phone
8067476570
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$77,237
Expenses
$89,263
Assets
$670,399
Liabilities
$4,695

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Monique Coleman (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Monique Coleman (Executive Director): $5,971 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission or the organization is to create, facilitate and promote economic development. The organization also has special programs to assist disadvantaged citizens in the west Texas area with special emphasis on economic development in north and east Lubbock, Texas.

What it reported doing in 2020

The NELCDC impacted households through homebuyer education and housing and credit counseling. New clients qualified for mortgage loans and become first-time homebuyers as a result of the CDCs housing and credit counseling program. New homebuyers were able to close on their mortgage loans as a result of attending the CDCs HUD-approved group education workshop on financial literacy and homebuyer education. The work of the housing counseling and affordable housing projects added taxable value to the local tax base.

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 95% 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

MIXED - 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: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 24.3%; rating input score 24
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.51; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.9% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.1% of revenue deployed · 24.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.