River City Community Development Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471696834
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
8723635018
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,249,340
Expenses
$1,247,489
Assets
$571,689
Liabilities
$29,123

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Beth Blackwell (President)
  • Charnesha Collier (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Charnesha Collier (Executive Director): $74,304 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

River City Community Development Center exists to bring together the best of our city to build a path for families to walk from cradle to career to the glory of God. The organization provides after-school and summer programs as well as leadership training and apprenticeships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dreambuilders, Peacebuilders, and Hopebuilders mentoring programs provide small group mentoring for grades pre-K through 8th five days weekly. In 2024, R CITY mentoring programs provided 24,500 hours of youth mentoring to 132 participants. Mentoring activities included academic support, STEAM exploration, high-interest field trips, physical activity, social-emotional learning, conflict resolution coaching, and victim services. Community outreach events serving mentees' friends and family welcomed 826 attendees across 11 events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $451.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.5%; rating input score 97; 44th 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: 0.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.