Williams & Russell Cdc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863566788
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5034828352
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,753,344
Expenses
$1,069,057
Assets
$39,345,048
Liabilities
$6,147,761

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AZALEA RENFIELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AZALEA RENFIELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,696 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The williams and russell development corporation's mission is to create an energetic community that supports the economic and community growth of black portlanders. Through the development of high-quality townhomes and apartments and an energetic business and community hub.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community development & reparative development framework: in 2025, williams & russell cdc completed an $11.4 million environmental remediation project, removing 40,000+ tons of soil from the hill block following its transfer from legacy health. The organization hosted a public groundbreaking with 100+ attendees, including Oregon governor tina kotek, engaged 15+ elected officials through legislative testimony and site tours, and presented its reparative development framework at harvard, council for urban verticalism in toronto, and two canadian universities, reaching 125+ students and practitioners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 2.6%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $167.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 39.7%; rating input score 40; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • 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: 96.5%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 36.8; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 31% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 125.2% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 127.5% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 2.6% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $597K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.1M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.