Ciudad De Angeles
Legal name: Ciudad De Angeles Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 010730818
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Marietta, GA, United States
- Phone
- 4045515129
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,009,442
- Expenses
- $894,232
- Assets
- $534,622
- Liabilities
- $2,968
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- James Maclaskey (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- James Maclaskey (Executive Director): $75,000 total reported compensation
- Leslie Johnson (Director): $55,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ciudad de Ángeles provides a safe & healthy environment based on Christian principles for orphaned, abandoned, abused and needy children living in Mexico. The home raises children to become Christian adults who are responsible citizens in their local communities. “Command those who are rich in this present world…to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share…so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.” I Timothy 6:17-19.
What it reported doing in 2024
Funded the operation of five houses in San Miguel, Cozumel, Quintana Roo, Mexico, housing 36 abandoned, abused, or orphaned children. Provided total need of children: food, housing, medical, educational, and spiritual. Collaborated with the State Department of Social Services in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Care includes coaching and counseling for transition from youth to adulthood. In 2024, ten young adults completed their stay and exited care of Ciudad de Angeles.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.8%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $43.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 76.8% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $776K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.