Rural Development Finance Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450437973
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mandan, ND, USA
Phone
7016636501
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,649,061
Expenses
$373,242
Assets
$11,378,141
Liabilities
$165,649

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SIGLOH (PRESIDENT)
  • PAULA ANDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID SIGLOH (PRESIDENT)
  • PAULA ANDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DEON VILHAUER (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

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

Rdfc encourages economic diversification and community vitality through the generation of funding that supports sustainable asset building.

What it reported doing in 2024

To encourage economic diversification and revitalization of rural communities in North Dakota and adjacent states, create employment and increase income for displaced farmers and low-income persons, and to enhance essential community services and facilities.to act as an intermediary lender and to develop a sustainable revolving loan pool for rural development lending pursuant to federal regulations and statutes and to provide technical assistance for rural economic development projects.to do all things necessary, suitable, and proper for the accomplishment of any of the purposes or the attainment of the objectives hereinabove stated, either alone or with other corporations, cooperatives, associations, firms or individuals, and to every other act or thing incidental to or growing out of such purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 75% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11.5%; rating input score 12
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 85.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.48; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 11.5% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $318K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.