Olivet Housing & Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341428128
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2167213585
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$158,874
Expenses
$207,304
Assets
$135,277
Liabilities
$96,934

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR DAISY ALFORD-SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DEBRA MCHAMM (DIRECTOR)
  • SHENISE THOMAS (DIRECTOR)
  • REV DR JAWANZA K COLVIN (CHAIRMAN)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the olivet housing & community development corporation ohcdc is to create opportunities for people from disconnected and disadvantaged communities. The organization pursues community impact through initiatives in the areas of quality health care access, education

What it reported doing in 2025

Neighborhood collaboration for competitive employment status neccess. Through this program, the ohcdc trains job seekers from underrepresented communities in digital and other job skills. Graduates of the program leave equipped with valuable skills and a pathway to sustainable employment opportunities in current and emerging fields. Community health promotion - in collaboration with university hospitals health system, the cdc provides a key location for delivery of health services at the otis moss, jr. University hospitals medical center. This comprehensive health clinic combines pastoral care, spiritual intervention, wellness and education to deliver quality, outpatient care to residents of fairfax and other surrounding communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 86% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $140K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.