Richmond Heights Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
650378328
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3052326611
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$572,203
Expenses
$106,886
Assets
$803,888
Liabilities
$86,424

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN WEBB (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARK BECKFORD (DIRECTOR)
  • KAREN WEBB (PRESIDENT)
  • FRIEDA BROWN (SECRETARY)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the richmond heights community development corporation (rhcdc) is to serve as an umbrella organization encompassing all community organizations in richmond heights. Its focus is on expanding economic development opportunities, increasing housing opportunities, promoting comprehensive neighborhood revitalization and ensuring the efficient delivery of social services, particularly to the senior citizens and youth of the neighborhood.

What it reported doing in 2024

The rhcdc established a scholarship program for graduating high school seniors. The purpose of this scholarship program is to commend, encourage and support richmond heights' aspiring young leaders. The recipients of the rhcdc scholarships are the epitome of strong work ethics combined with diligent study. In addition to excelling scholastically, all of the awardees have contributed to the community by volunteering with civic or charitable organizations, and/or serving in extra-curricular leadership activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 77% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.1%; rating input score 12
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.2%; rating input score 79; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 81.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.52; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.1% of revenue deployed · 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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 12/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.