Chicago Community Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010883062
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3127446746
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$495,869
Expenses
$740,021
Assets
$3,146,213
Liabilities
$11,850

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIE FRONZCZAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOY ARUGUETE (PRESIDENT)
  • WILLIAM W TOWNS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISSETTE CASTANEDA (EX-OFFICIO DIRECTOR): $272,694 total reported compensation
  • JENNIE FRONZCZAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $186,868 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 mission of the chicago community land trust (cclt) is to provide and sustain quality, affordable homeownership opportunities and a community of support for working families and individuals in chicago and to preserve these opportunities for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program activities include community outreach and marketing to inform low-income working families about affordable purchase opportunities through the organization; provision of homebuyer resources including buyer education on the organization ownership model and training for mortgage lenders, attorneys and other real estate professionals; and post purchase homeowner support and monitoring to ensure that the organization owners are stabilized in their homes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 80% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $72.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -49.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.25; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $655K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.