Boys & Girls Clubs of Puerto Rico

Legal name: Boys & Girls Clubs of Puerto Rico Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
660327584
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Carolina, PR, USA
Phone
(787)728-4040
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,240,863
Expenses
$37,977,219
Assets
$64,322,930
Liabilities
$49,059,286

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALMA FRONTERA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALMA FRONTERA (PRESIDENT): $180,000 total reported compensation
  • PAUL BARRERAS DIAZ (FINANCE DIRE): $120,000 total reported compensation
  • NORA BOSCHETTI MARTINEZ (HEAD START D): $102,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Head start - this program promotes school readiness by enhancing the cognitive, physical, behavioral, and social-emotional development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, families. The program is designed to involve parents in their child's learning and development, and to help parents make progress toward their educational, literacy, and employment goals. The program includes services of head start and early head start for boys and girls between 2 months and 4 years 11 months of age. Bgcpr commenced with this program during the year ended june 30, 2022.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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; 77th 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: 28.7%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 14 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 71.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $38M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.