Fundacion Transparencia Electoral De America Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862657162
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3052349860
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Democracy & Civil Society Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$345,639
Expenses
$276,421
Assets
$101,676
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEANDRO QUERIDO (PRESIDENT)
  • JESUS DELGADO (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEANDRO QUERIDO (PRESIDENT): $7,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promotion of democratic values.transparent, honest, and fair elections.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promotion of the rights of el salvador voters in the united states, and dissemination of information on voting abroad.effectively provided clear information on the voting rights and procedures for salvadoran nationals living in the united states for the 2024 presidential elections of el salvador to tv and radio stations that broadcast in areas where theres a high concentration of this population. As it was the first time salvadorans living in the us would be able to vote from abroad, this on its own was an important achievement. The organization delivered timely, graphic materials on the ground to salvadoran nationals living in mendota, fresno county (ca), and even received support from la county supervisor, hilda solis, who serves an important number of salvadoran-americans in los angeles and helped publish the information on voting procedures, locations and hours in her social media.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 7
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.2%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 9%; rating input score 9
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 137.1% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 103.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.2% of revenue deployed · 9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $25K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.