South Tower Community Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
883488608
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5594927249
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$409,529
Expenses
$595,478
Assets
$1,021,130
Liabilities
$213,372

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kiel Schmidt (Executive Director)
  • Vishinna Turner (Vice President)
  • Stanley Johnson (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kiel Schmidt (Executive Director): $115,360 total reported compensation
  • Vishinna Turner (Vice President): $29,780 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help the community have access to affordable housing that they will ultimatley own as well as supporting the arts and beautification of Fresnos Tower District.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, South Tower Community Land Trust completed and sold the first Community Land Trust home in Fresno County, located at 517 N. Farris Ave. The organization also acquired the adjacent property at 525 N. Farris Ave. and began rehabilitation activities for an anticipated sale in 2026. In addition, South Tower Community Land Trust initiated predevelopment activities for eight new affordable homes on properties acquired in 2024, expanding the pipeline of permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households.STCLT also conducted their 3rd annual Queer Housing Summit which is an event put on for the community in order to share and address issues the community is facing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 19th 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: 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -45.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 132.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 61.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.2% of revenue deployed · 46.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $279K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.