Cuba Study Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
651154598
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
3056685437
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$489,175
Expenses
$397,766
Assets
$277,448
Liabilities
$5,502

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICARDO HERRERO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICARDO HERRERO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $194,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's primary exempt purpose is to educate the public on alternatives that lead to a free, sovereign, inclusive and prosperous cuba that provides opportunities for all of its citizens to fulfill their aspirations.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization studies and proposes projects and ideas that promote and facilitate non-violent changes in cuba leading to an open society, respect for human rights and the rule of law, a productive, market-based economy, and the reunification of the cuban nation. The organization undertakes academic research, promotes debate, conducts public opinion surveys, and holds conferences. The purpose of each of these activities is to promote a greater understanding of the forces that impact civil society development in cuba and produce debate on the social and ethical issues to be faced by those who desire to empower the cuban people to be the authors of their own future.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 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: 89.2%; rating input score 89; 51st 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: 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: 18.7%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $309K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.