For A Loving Future

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871109213
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
4422221291
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$187,464
Expenses
$564,608
Assets
$356,225
Liabilities
$298

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sayra Pinto (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sayra Pinto (CEO): $107,950 total reported compensation
  • Gabriela Garza (CFO): $70,850 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We have become a grassroots practice-based think tank bringing together grassroots leaders to articulate and share new practice theories emerging from their lifelong community work with a focus on the role of love in creating and sustaining long term multisectoral change in complex adaptive systems.

What it reported doing in 2024

Organizational development and fundraising support for Center for Cooperative Development and Solidarity. Organizational development for Peacemakers Lodge. Continued womens solidarity circle with 6 gatherings in California including 2 weekend gatherings. Completed first cohort of Comunidades Organizadas Certificate. Formalized Loving Future Solidarity Fund and began offering rapid response support to people who are part of the transnational Central American cultural milieu. 4 learning exchanges in Guatemala including hosting 15 individuals from US Mexico & Honduras. Offered 2 lectures in Honduras. Participated and led session at Central American Donors Forum. Began organizational development and strategic planning for Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Strengthened internal systems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97%; rating input score 97; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -201.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $522K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 45 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.