Omega Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311561713
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dayton, OH, USA
Phone
9377238254
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,240,836
Expenses
$9,450,356
Assets
$11,542,148
Liabilities
$5,629,650

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rev Vanessa Ward (President)
  • Rachel Ward (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rev Vanessa Ward (President): $174,095 total reported compensation
  • Rachel Ward (Vice President): $127,463 total reported compensation
  • Jonathan Williams (Chief Financial Officer): $114,245 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 Omega CDC focuses on three aspects of community development: Youth, Family, and Economic Development services. Our vision is to transform northwest Dayton into a family

What it reported doing in 2024

CDF Freedom Schools Program. The CDF Freedom Schools Program provides summer enrichment that helps children to fall in love with reading, to increase their self-esteem, and to generate more positive attitudes toward reading. Children are taught, using a model curriculum that supports children and families around five essential components: 1. High quality academic enrichment; 2. Parent and family involvement; 3. Civic engagement and social action; 4. Intergenerational leadership development; 5. Nutrition and health, and mental health.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -2.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.7% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 24 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.