Richmond Labor and Love Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 861103023
IRS 990 coverage: 2020–2022
Forms available: Form 990 2022
Location: Richmond, CA, USA
Phone: 5104350596
Rating: 62
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue: $2,762,805
Expenses: $931,281
Assets: $1,504,500
Liabilities: $0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

Raymond Landry (President/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

Raymond Landry (President/CEO): $34,560 total reported compensation
Joshua Weary (Secretary): $3,176 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We build, manage and provide low-income permanent and emergency housing opportunities to qualified residents. We offer education, employment and training programs and opportunities to hard to employ individuals. We support community and faith-based organizations with financial and technical assistance to provide social services in distressed communities.

What it reported doing in 2022

Provided 110 residents with low income housing units and HUD vouchers. Coordinated relative social services for housing residents. Provided a youth construction summer training program for 60 high school students for 3 years. Provided short term emergency shelter for 20 unhoused women and women with children.

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 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 71
Transparency & Controls: 73
Accountability: 18
Sustainability: 80
Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
Foreign activity oversight: Limited
Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Major donor itemization: Limited
Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

Operating margin: 66.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 45.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 102.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: -47.1% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $929K in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $447K reported
Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2022
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.