Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
753129705
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5592228705
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,929,357
Expenses
$4,950,925
Assets
$13,031,058
Liabilities
$4,027,713

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dora Westerlund (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dora Westerlund (President & CEO): $235,200 total reported compensation
  • Yerania Olivares (COO): $171,200 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 promote education and self-sufficiency through economic development that strengthens our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Consumer Loan Program: As a Community Development Financial Institution ("CDFI"), the Organization invests in the prosperity and well-being of the community by offering affordable consumer loans. This loan program is designed to provide financial assistance to those who lack access to traditional financing sources, while also presenting opportunities to improve their personal finances. This program is dedicated to empowering individuals in the Fresno area and the surrounding Central Valley rural communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 69.3%; rating input score 69; 18th 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: 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: 16.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.63; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $164K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • 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.