San Francisco Community Investment Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271996807
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155544082
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,665,003
Expenses
$1,799,129
Assets
$5,617,235
Liabilities
$336,061

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN STRONG (PRESIDENT)
  • JOAQUIN TORRES (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN STRONG (PRESIDENT)
  • JOAQUIN TORRES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CARMEN CHU (SECRETARY)

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

The corporation's specific purpose is to assist in carrying out the economic development programs and objectives of the city. It will promote the development, establishment or expansion of industries and commerce in low-income areas by generating private investment capital through the new markets tax credit ("nmtc") program. The corporation will make loans available for investment in "low-income communities or "low-income persons" (as defined in the law and regulations governing the nmtc program). The primary mission of the corporation is to serve low-income communities or low-income persons by providing investment capital. The organizations's activites will target economically distressed communities within the city.

What it reported doing in 2024

The corporation has been certified as a community development entitiy ("cde") and has and will apply for allocation of new markets tax credits ("nmtcs"). The corporation has formed subsidiary limited liability companies in which the corporation will serve as the managing member. The corporation will apply on behalf of such subsidiaries for certification as cdes and will sub-allocate its nmtcs to one or more subsidiary cdes in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the nmtc program for purposes of making qualified low-income community investments to low-income communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 32.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.12; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.