Rainier Valley Community Development Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331030838
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2067225280
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,911,057
Expenses
$2,276,543
Assets
$33,574,441
Liabilities
$2,993,523

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD CASSELL (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • MANDY LANDA (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALVERTIS BROOKS JR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALVERTIS BROOKS JR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $177,861 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT WILLIAMS (REGIONAL MANAGER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEV.): $146,593 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT LUCIANO (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT): $144,426 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization serves as a catalyst for economic development that promotes the diversity and livability of the rainier valley area of southeast seattle, Washington.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization (rvcdf) acts as trustee for a revolving loan fund, the southeast seattle community. The revolving loan funds may only be used for community development activities in specified areas as defined in the trust document.in addition, the fund maintains non-restricted funds that enable it to lend outside of the trust zone, which are secured through partnerships with banking institutions, city, state, county, and foundation relationships.

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 84% 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.9%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 60.3%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.2%; rating input score 87; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 53.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.75; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.9% of revenue deployed · 60.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $132K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.