Southside Redevelopment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842173880
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4029169293
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,550,677
Expenses
$4,239,870
Assets
$91,670,502
Liabilities
$42,851,921

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CESAR GARCIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CESAR GARCIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $207,131 total reported compensation
  • CRYSTAL SIERRA (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $119,422 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Southside redevelopment corporation is a not-for-profit organization whose focus is to generate holistic and effective revitalization in south omaha neighborhoods through strategic partnership and community-driven initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is the recipient of two state of Nebraska department of economic development north and south omaha recovery grant programs (nsorg). The organization will revitalize plaza de la raza, located at 24th and n streets, for outdoor activities, performances, and gatherings. The project will also include alley improvements, streetscaping, and a parking garage with integrated retail. The organization will lead the q street economic recovery partnership, working with others to support the community of south omaha. The organization has entered into subrecipient agreements with other nonprofits to help complete the project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $71.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.62; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 54.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.3% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.