Riverview West Florissant Housing Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431689238
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3143829000
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$657,704
Expenses
$657,704
Assets
$530,882
Liabilities
$530,882

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jade James (Vice President)
  • Linda Givens (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christiana Hampton (Program Director): $62,400 total reported compensation
  • Jason Hampton (Project Manager): $54,000 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 mission of RWFDC is to undertake community development activities that included housing, neighborhood improvement and economic development in the neighborhoods of Baden, College Hill, Near North Riverfront, North Point, O'Fallon, Penrose, Walnut Park East and West, Hyde Park, and other communities within the city's North side. RWFDC has been an established grass roots non-profit organization that has been providing community-based services within the City of St. Louis for over 25 years.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Handyman Program is a dynamic intergenerational youth program designed to foster meaningful connections between young adults and elderly residents within their shared neighborhoods. Rooted in the values of service, empathy, and community resilience, this initiative empowers youth to support older adults by providing minor home repairs that enhance safety, comfort, and dignitywhile bridging generational divides through hands-on collaboration and mutual respect. Program Goals: Strengthen intergenerational relationships through service and storytelling Promote aging in place by improving home safety and accessibility Cultivate civic responsibility and practical skills among youth Reduce social isolation among elderly residents Foster neighborhood pride and collective care Who Participates: Youth Volunteers: Ages 1625, trained in basic home repair and communication skills Elderly Residents: Age 60+, living independently within the community and in need of minor home maintenance Community Partners: Local nonprofits, vocational schools, faith organizations, and neighborhood associations Services Offered: Interior Repairs Fixing leaky faucets or replacing worn-out washers Patching small holes or cracks in drywall Replacing broken light switches or outlet covers Re-caulking around sinks, tubs, or windows Tightening loose cabinet hinges or drawer handles Changing door knobs for ease of use Exterior Repairs Securing porches, steps, railings, and banisters Repainting chipped or faded trim Replacing damaged weather stripping around doors Repairing loose fence boards or gate latches Changing door locks for improved security Appliance & Fixture Maintenance Replacing toilet flappers, handles, and tanks Installing new showerheads or faucet aerators Changing HVAC filters and smoke detector batteries Lubricating squeaky door hinges or garage doors Cosmetic Improvements Touching up paint scuffs or scratches Replacing outdated light fixtures or curtain rods Refreshing worn-out grout in small tiled areas Training & Support: Youth participants receive hands-on training in basic home repair, safety protocols, and respectful communication with older adults. Workshops are facilitated by skilled trades individuals and community mentors, emphasizing both technical proficiency and relational engagement. Intergenerational Connection: Each repair visit includes time for conversation, storytelling, and shared reflection. Youth are encouraged to document residents life stories, wisdom, and neighborhood historycreating a living archive of community memory and resilience. Program Impact: Improved home safety and comfort for elderly residents Increased youth engagement and skill-building Strengthened neighborhood bonds and mutual trust Reduced emergency repair costs and fall risks Elevated community awareness of aging and accessibility needs

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 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.6% of revenue deployed · 76.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $182K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.