Virginia Community Development Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541914519
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043431200
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,374,234
Expenses
$1,472,214
Assets
$15,822,893
Liabilities
$2,329,763

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John PSalop (President)
  • Karen Wilds (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Robert Newman (Treasurer): $263,092 total reported compensation
  • Laura Dupuy (Secretary): $134,224 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

VCDF provides alternative financing and technical assistance to real estate developers engaged in the creation or preservation of affordable housing, community development, and economic development projects throughout our service areas of Virginia and West Virginia.

What it reported doing in 2024

VCDF is a subsidiary of VCDC, which invests equity into community development project with a focus on affordable housing. VCDF is a certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) and applies its focus to other tools to assist in the development of these projects, primarily through affordable loans to Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects and through economic development loans in low income communities. In addition, VCDF offers a technical assistance program to its partners and borrowers. VCDF is also a Certified Development Entity (CDE) and thereby can apply to the US Treasurys New Market Tax Credit program (NMTC) for allocation of credits for investment in economic development projects. VCDF received its second allocation of NMTCs in the 2018 2018 round for $35,000,000 , and those NMTCs have been fully deployed. VCDF will continue to apply for new rounds of NMTCs and intends to continue to invest in community facilities as well as mixed-use projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.75; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.3% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $263K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $152K reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.