Dolores C Huerta Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912145992
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bakersfield, CA, USA
Phone
6613223033
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,180,703
Expenses
$7,437,362
Assets
$31,419,379
Liabilities
$22,339,082

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOLORES HUERTA (PRESIDENT)
  • CAMILA CHAVEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CAMILA CHAVEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,656 total reported compensation
  • EDUARDO CEDENO (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $125,000 total reported compensation
  • ALEGRIA DELA CRUZ (DIRECTOR OF GOVT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS): $118,548 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To engage exclusively in charitable, educational, and social purposes for the benefit of low-income persons. To create a network of organized communities pursuing social justice through systemic and structural transformation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth leadership & education equityin 2024, dhf held 6 workshops on school district accountability, engaging over 50 youth and vecinos in strengthening their skills as advocates for equity in education. The foundation also reached 847 students through 119 events focused on higher education and career readiness, supporting young people as they explored pathways to college and future careers. Beyond direct programming, dhf youth leaders helped shape statewide conversations on healthier school meals and first-time voter engagement, while the education equity program and kern education justice collaborative continued organizing for fair school funding and restorative justice practices. Dhf also carried forward legal action challenging the approval of a charter school that threatened students with disabilities and english learners, underscoring the foundation's commitment to educational equity and community voice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.3%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.22; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $543K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.