Richmond Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943337754
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5102341200
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,099,693
Expenses
$10,027,730
Assets
$6,810,688
Liabilities
$4,359,471

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • James Becker (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • James Becker (CEO): $179,234 total reported compensation
  • Mariana Moore (Senior Director): $130,665 total reported compensation
  • Roxanne Carrillo Garza (Senior Director): $118,182 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 Richmond Community Foundation mobilizes the power of connection to build healthy, thriving communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Equip Richmond: A multiyear economic revitalization strategy that increases and sustains community economic viability through services that improve economic self-sufficiency and help small businesses create and sustain jobs. The goals of the project are to build the capacity of Richmond and North Richmond community organizations to deliver economic benefits to their communities, as well as to build individual capacity and improve conditions for current residents. Currently, five projects are part of the Equip Richmond initiative. These include a cooperative business hub (COBIZ), a Comprehensive Employment Training Center (CET), a social enterprise for a local nonprofit (Pogo Park Products), a construction resource center, and finally, barrier removal services for clients enrolled in the other projects to help them achieve success.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 35.5%; rating input score 36; 14th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.