Nt Cdfi Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412138426
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025886000
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,800
Expenses
$537,468
Assets
$526,353
Liabilities
$526,353

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MERRILL HOOPENGARDNER (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN LEITH TETRAULT (FORMER PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MERRILL HOOPENGARDNER (PRESIDENT): $456,554 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LEITH TETRAULT (FORMER PRESIDENT): $252,912 total reported compensation
  • LESLIE A KAMRAD (CORPORATE SECRETARY): $113,830 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote community development by increasing the access of capital in older and historic neighborhoods located in low income and disadvantaged communities, and/or economic development investment areas.

What it reported doing in 2016

Nt cdfi is responsible for the management of the inner-city ventures fund, the revolving loan fund of the national trust for historic preservation in the united states established with donor contributions, program related investments from foundations, and low-interest loans from financial institutions. Nt cdfi is governed by its own board of directors, bylaws, and operating and policy procedures. The primary mission of nt cdfi is to provide loans and technical assistance to benefit preservation based community development in low-income communities, investment areas, and other disadvantaged communities that are located in older and historic neighborhoods or commercial districts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -29,759.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 46.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $530K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $457K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.