California Latino Superintendents Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770162236
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164443216
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,537,315
Expenses
$1,553,252
Assets
$691,915
Liabilities
$159,747

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARTHA L MARTINEZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • OFELIA LARIVIERE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DR ROXANE FUENTES (PRESIDENT)
  • DR JUAN MANUEL SANTOS (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • DR ZANDRA JO GALVAN (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • OFELIA LARIVIERE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $86,666 total reported compensation
  • MARTHA L MARTINEZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $56,667 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 California association of latino superintendents and administrators (calsa) is a community of diverse educational leaders skilled in addressing the needs of latino/latina students and dedicated to increasing the number of highly effective latino/latina administrators.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mentorship program: calsa mentorship program provides compassionate assistance in a combination of passion, persistence and integrity which guides mentors in the manner by which they provide support to each protege. Through this mutual empowerment the mentoring pair develops more as educational professionals who purposefully commit to increase latino student achievement and eliminate the achievement gap for all students. The protege must be supported and current perspective challenged, but proteges are required to find their own answers. Mentors seek to build confidence and independence by actively listening, sharing perspective, and providing alternatives. Proteges must take full responsibility for their professional growth and career development to reach the next stage of their career. Cohort 20 has 22 proteges each paired with a mentor, and cohort 21 has 27 proteges, also each with a mentor making a total of 49 proteges, each matched with a mentor.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 94.3%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96%; rating input score 96; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 94.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $147K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.