Madison Area CLT Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391680095
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082852691
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$487,044
Expenses
$557,489
Assets
$2,782,653
Liabilities
$2,604,738

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen von Huene (Board President)
  • Beth Welch (Board Vice President)
  • Olivia Williams (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Olivia Williams (Executive Director): $114,967 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

MACLT liberates land for the benefit of historically marginalized populations at the lowest incomes possible, preserving urban space for community use, and creating deeply and permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for those typically exploited by the housing market.

What it reported doing in 2024

Madison area community land trust provides ongoing stewardship of 62 homes and the land underneath them that are kept permanently affordable under the terms of a ground lease and/or declaration of restrictive covenants with the land trust. Maclt also stewards the land under 10 market-rate homes as well as conservation and agricultural land. And maclt has a maintenance services program that involves obtaining grant funding and coordinating maintenance services to the low-income homeowners in our homeownership program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.99; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $429K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.