Rock Island Economic Growth Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363267851
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rock Island, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3097946711
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,970,238
- Expenses
- $8,599,521
- Assets
- $48,614,036
- Liabilities
- $28,390,553
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN HOLLENBACK (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- ELIZABETH PAYNE (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- BRIAN HOLLENBACK (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $481,453 total reported compensation
- CYNTHIA BERG (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $224,206 total reported compensation
- ANDREW FISHER (CONSTRUCTION DIRECTOR): $125,988 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 mission of rock island economic growth corporation is to renovate and build new single family or multi-family housing in the midwest region; to foster low-income housing that: enhances the overall image and economic vitality of the region; improves housing market dynamics in the region, especially in its older, blighted neighborhoods; encourages home ownership; is committed to developing affordable housing; promotes building construction and maintenance, training of homebuyers and neighborhood residents.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rock island economic growth corporation stabilizes and rehabilitates residential neighborhoods in the midwest region by developing housing, managing housing and providing assistance to homebuyers including, but not limited to, homebuyer and homeowner education, closing cost and down payment assistance, rehabilitation cost assistance and foreclosure prevention.
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 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 88
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 42.5%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 56.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.65; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 42.5% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $481K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $884K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 38 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.