American Latvian Association in the Unit

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
530215408
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
3013401914
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,121,349
Expenses
$1,135,796
Assets
$9,023,610
Liabilities
$214,290

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARTINS ANDERSONS (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREJS KANCS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARISA GUDRAIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARISA GUDRAIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $96,394 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 american latvian association (ala) is the main representative organization for the latvian american community. Through 100 member organizations, churches, clubs and some 4,000 individual members we represent over 90,000 people of latvian descent living in the us. We are a nonprofit, tax exempt educational and cultual organization. Ala supports cultural activities and facilitates cooperation within the latvian american community. We promote the study of latvian language, history and culture. We ensure the availability of latvian schools, books and teaching materials for our children. We assist newly arrived immigrants with information about the USA and we provide humanitarian aid to people in latvia. Ala seeks to facilitate the peaceful and democratic development of latvia by promoting understanding and support for latvia through informational efforts in the USA.

What it reported doing in 2024

Culture: provides support to latvian establishments to be able to congregate and host cultural events, provides awards for cultural projects like movies, book publishing, etc. Also provides support and aid to lv by providing awards to underprivileged children and families in lv in collaboration with ngos children's fund of latvia and angel's heart.

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 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 44th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.94; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $892K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 39 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.