Cocal Gracias

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453253810
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5204902273
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$519,697
Expenses
$183,938
Assets
$794,331
Liabilities
$3,608

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN RUARK (PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN RUARK (PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR): $44,660 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 misson of cocal gracias is to build community, encourage learning, and form disciples by helping people achieve their potential in the name of jesus. This mission is reflected in the three areas above. Mlv trains professionals, timothy center will save youth from following drugs and alcohol, and our humanitarian efforts build community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Cocal gracias funded and ran ministerio la voz, a trade school in puerto cortes all year.cocal gracias started the year with the purchase of a much-needed property that contained the shell of a building already constructed. Cocal spent 6 months renovating and remodeling this facility in puerto cortes, to host our ministry trade school classes. We continued construction simultaneously on our mechanic shop for the mechanic program. This construction was on the palermo property purchased in 2022. We built a mechanic shop floor with six bays, and we built an office. In august we donated the old cocal buildings to the nazarene church and we moved into our new facility.we ran classes in our ministry, for welding, computers, english, sewing, mechanics. We had 85 students in the program. We graduated 10 in december and 5 in july.the mechanic shop started to function for the students in october and we started accepting clients to give them practice. We held a men's discipleship class most of the year on tuesdays, and we held worship every wednesday. Ministry classes ran every week of the year except in july.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - Revenue comfortably covers expenses and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.1%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 59.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $87.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.32; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.1% of revenue deployed · 59.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.