Centro Coopertivo De Desarrollo Y Solidaridad

Legal name: Center for Cooperative Development and Solidarity Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992557602
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
East Boston, MA, United States
Phone
617-544-1001
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,144,521
Expenses
$542,554
Assets
$2,921,644
Liabilities
$8,267

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUZ ZAMBRANO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LUZ ZAMBRANO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUZ ZAMBRANO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $37,209 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Center for Cooperative Development and Solidarity (CCDS) provides educational, technical, financial, human, intellectual and organizational support to groups of people in and around East Boston, mostly low-income immigrants, to explore the creation of worker owned cooperatives as an economic and social alternative. Through our work, CCDS is contributing to the social, economic and racial equity of our community, generating decent wages, prosperous lives thus helping to forward the local and the global solidarity economy and cooperativism movement.

What it reported doing in 2025

-providing training and cooperative educational programming to organizations serving people both in Massachusetts and nationally. -participating in various studies and panels exploring cooperative business models -continuing to develop the cooperatives that we serve, including helping coops access necessary space (such as commercial kitchen) kitchen), connecting them with consulting services and helping them build client relationships. -launched an english course to specifically address the english language needs of cooperative members. Provided leadership (continued on schedule o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11.6%; rating input score 12
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 82.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.38; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 199.9% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 164% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 161.5% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 11.6% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $356K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.