Beverly-Vermont Community Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261117569
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2135377295
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing, Shelter N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$595,702
Expenses
$595,740
Assets
$5,753,645
Liabilities
$872,860

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT VU (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN SIMON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KASEY VENTURA (COMMUNITY ORGANIZER): $83,960 total reported compensation
  • FAIZAH BARLAS (DIR. OF FINANCE & OPER THROUGH 7/24): $43,789 total reported compensation
  • ARA KIM (ARA KIM, DIR. OF REAL EST AND ASSET MGMT): $28,823 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Beverly-Vermont community land trust (bvclt)'s mission is to build community power to keep working class communities of color in their homes and neighborhoods through permanent affordability and democratic community ownership in koreatown and the surrounding transit-oriented neighborhoods in los angeles.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, beverly-Vermont community land trust completed the rehabilitation for 108 s kenmore property and for 6629 lemp property, completing work on two buildings. Bvclt also hired three new staff members (director of finance and operations, director of cultural arts and basebuilding, and director of resident and land stewardship) to have a total of four staff members at the end of the year. Bvclt managed the third year of the fellowship program to develop member and resident leaders, and conducted other membership programming. Bvclt was engaged in multiple coalitions to advocate for permanently affordable housing, collective ownership models, and new funding sources to pursue community land trust 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.66; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.3% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $395K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.