Cuenca Los Ojos

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474433572
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
7757227188
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Reported finances

Revenue
$375,552
Expenses
$266,552
Assets
$891,670
Liabilities
$67,156

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VALERIE GORDON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JEREMIAH H LEIBOWITZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSE MANUEL PEREZ CANTU (CONSERVATION DIRECTOR): $50,041 total reported compensation
  • JEREMIAH H LEIBOWITZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $35,337 total reported compensation
  • AMY VEGA (ADMINISTRITIVE COORDINATOR): $6,878 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.

What it reported doing in 2024

Borderlands (sky islands) conservation and ecological restoration program: during the tax year, cuenca los ojos advanced landscape-scale conservation and habitat restoration scoping within the sky island region. Grants of $59,501 to cuenca los ojos, ac support that entity's parallel mission focused on conservation of this shared geographic location, specifically for efforts focused on assessing watershed function, enhancing soil health and water infiltration to prevent flooding in local municipalities. More than 30 collaborators: technicians, researchers, and volunteers have participated in on-site restoration and training activities. These activities were conducted in coordination with county and local groups, including ranchers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.35; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.2% of revenue deployed · 44.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $119K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.