Border Community Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611726630
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Tubac, AZ, USA
Phone
5204490327
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Coalitions

Reported finances

Revenue
$612,090
Expenses
$545,914
Assets
$532,371
Liabilities
$112,839

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Seth Schermerhorn (Vice President)
  • Susan Scott (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Celia Bavier (Executive Dir.): $74,503 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Foster education, collaboration, social advocacy and cultural exchange between U.S. and Mexico border communities

What it reported doing in 2025

Border Community Alliance is a nonprofit dedicated to bridging the U.S.Mexico border and fostering community through education, collaboration, and cultural exchange. BCA connects people and cultures across the border to cultivate awareness and a positive sense of international community, and advocates mutual respect for the cultural diversity of the borderlands region. During the year, BCA led cross-border and domestic cultural tours in the spirit of citizen diplomacy; provided humanitarian and charitable funding to partner organizations serving communities in Sonora, Mexico; delivered in-place public education programming, classes, and workshops through the Borderlands Forum in collaboration with Sonoran partners; and engaged community ambassadors and volunteers to support its educational and cultural exchange mission throughout Southern Arizona and the border region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd 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; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $491K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.