Beloved Community Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813388287
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,388,965
Expenses
$3,767,321
Assets
$1,034,706
Liabilities
$1,787,616

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rhonda J Broussard (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rhonda J Broussard (CEO): $210,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Catalyze people and institutions to implement sustainable cross-sector diversity practices that result in economic growth

What it reported doing in 2024

FY25 Narrative In Beloved Community's eighth year we supported 19 organizations with ongoing facilitations, trained 528 organizational leaders in operationalizing their commitments to equity for all. 74% of our organizations were in our workforce portfolio, reflecting the continued growth of our Good Jobs Coalition. We celebrated the following impact and milestones: 1) Awa By Beloved Tool Suite: In FY25, 13 organizations completed the Equity Audit. The work of these leaders impacted 1,089 full-time staff across their respective organizations. 2) Power to Make Change: In FY25 we presented findings and recommendations to the New Orleans Early Education Network based on our brief: Expanding Access to Early Education Opportunities for Latine Families in Orleans Parish. Key findings included: Collaborate with Latine families to identify which settings they value for early childhood education Budget for language access support for job recruitment and professional development, not just community outreach and enrollment Create a comprehensive guide to early childhood access for newcomer families Consider replicating HeadStarts Dual Language Assessment to standardize assessment across all providers regardless of size Ensure that local policy, data collection, programs, and ongoing professional development includes inclusive values and embeds the importance of cultural competency. Provide an updated intake form in English and Spanish where families respond to questions about race, ethnicity, and languages spoken. If families are not literate, an employee can facilitate. Disaggregate and analyze program data by race and ethnicity to better understand who is making use of publicly funded early programs. Identify opportunities within the region to strengthen, resource, and support informal networks of Latine family child care workforce entrepreneurs. Consider replicating Jefferson Ready Start Networks two-generation workforce training program and application partnership with La Voz. Learn from effective programs around the country and other local early childhood exemplars that are effectively meeting the needs of cultural communities, for example, Charlotte Bilingual Preschool in North Carolina or Centro Tyrone Guzman in Michigan.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 program spending has grown recently. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 67.5%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -57.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.73; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.