Downtown Association of Fresno

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941457817
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5594909966
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,820,869
Expenses
$1,889,139
Assets
$843,767
Liabilities
$114,757

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELLIOTT BALCH (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLIOTT BALCH (President & CEO): $156,461 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 organization's mission is to enchance the vitality of downtown fresno by improving, promoting and devel0ping the historic central business district.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Association, known as the Downtown Fresno Partnership, manages a Property-based Business Improvement District (PBID) supported by a property tax assessment on 352 parcels in Downtown Fresno. Through leadership, partnership, and advocacy we serve the needs of property owners and businesses, as well as the community at large. The Downtown Fresno Partnership is leading Downtown Fresno toward its future as a vibrant hub of residential and business activity by promoting downtowns image; supporting physical improvements; advocating for merchants; and hosting special events that bring new life to the historic core of our city. Our work has the effect of improving the value proposition for real estate and business investment, and strengthening the enabling environment for development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 18 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.