Supportive Housing Community Land Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873344652
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5109649500
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,135,113
Expenses
$1,204,920
Assets
$799,187
Liabilities
$884,638

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TESLIM IKHARO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESLIM IKHARO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $249,917 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 supportive housing community land alliance (shcla) is a nonprofit community land trust whose mission is to ease the housing crisis for people with serious mental health challenges in alameda county. Through the community land trust model, shcla creates and stewards permanently affordable housing by maintaining ownership of the land and assuring the homes on the land provide stable, supportive, and successful housing for residents whose income is up to 30% of the alameda county area median income.

What it reported doing in 2024

Shcla secured a conditional loan commitment from the city of oakland to acquire a co-living facility, converting the property into a licensed adult residential facility serving transition aged youth with serious mental illness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.3%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 24.7%; rating input score 25
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.11; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 79.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 93.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 76.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.3% of revenue deployed · 24.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $297K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 1 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.