Oaksatl Community Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 820811019
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4049645684
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Search Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,223,358
- Expenses
- $1,356,997
- Assets
- $8,380,075
- Liabilities
- $2,881,001
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATT MAXWELL (President/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MATT MAXWELL (President/CEO): $152,654 total reported compensation
- JEFF-AUDRY JOSEPH (Secretary): $55,784 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization seeks to combat community deterioration and provide relief for the distressed and underprivileged by purchasing, renovating and leasing properties located in the neighborhoods of english avenue, vine city and the surrounding atlanta communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization continues advancing its mixed-use development initiative in the English Avenue neighborhood following approval to begin construction. The project remains focused on creating three affordable commercial spaces and six residential units to support long-term community revitalization and equitable economic growth. Additionally, the organization continues supporting the development of affordable residential and commercial construction projects in underserved Atlanta neighborhoods. Strategic partnerships with Westside Future Fund and Grove Park Renewal remain active and ongoing, with collaborative efforts centered on expanding equitable development opportunities, neighborhood investment, and community-focused property initiatives.
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 97% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 66
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 43.9%; rating input score 44
- Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 39%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.18; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 30% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 43.9% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $976K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.