Skid Row Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953288131
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2136237130
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Shelters

Reported finances

Revenue
$582,633
Expenses
$1,440,942
Assets
$1,766,988
Liabilities
$14,874,852

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marcia Reddy (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marcia Reddy (CEO): $11,226 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 principal purpose of the skid row development corporation is to increase economic development opportunities and social services to the community directly east of downtown los angeles, commonlly known as "skid row". This purpose shall be served by providing housing and economic development services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Skid Row Development Corporation (SRDC) operates two low-income single room occupancy hotels (Norbo Hotel and Marion Hotel) which are located in the downtown Skid Row Community of Los Angeles.Norbo Hotel is a 57-unit 4-story structure with single-room occupancy with commercial space on the ground floor. Amenities include semi-furnished rooms which consist of a bed, a refrigerator, and a closet. Bathrooms and showers are located in the rooms and several are located at each floor to accomodate tenants on their floors. Also, there is a laundry facility and a community kitchen both located on the first floor.Marion Hotel is a 44-unit 3-story structure with single-room occupancy. Amenities include semi-furnished rooms which consist of a bed, a refrigerator, and a sink. Bathrooms and showers are not located in the room and several are located at each floor to accomodate tenants on their floors. Also, there is a laundry facility and a community kitchen both located on the first floor.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -147.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 8.42; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $11K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.