Genesis La Economic Growth Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 954712513
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2135338900
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Urban, Community Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,549,186
- Expenses
- $7,325,672
- Assets
- $161,104,961
- Liabilities
- $68,970,424
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THOMAS J DESIMONE (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- THOMAS J DESIMONE (PRESIDENT/CEO): $729,202 total reported compensation
- JESSICA WAYBRIGHT (LEGAL COUNSEL): $277,368 total reported compensation
- JEMELLE DICIOCO (TREASURER, DIRECTOR OF FIN): $237,335 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of the organization shall be to combat community deterioration by assisting, implmenting, supporting or contributing to the support of programs, projects and activities of public nature designed to stimulate economic development.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization assisted in combating community deterioration by implementing, supporting or contributing to the support of programs, projects and activities of public nature designed to stimulate, foster, coordinate, plan, improve and encourage economic development thereby ameliorating conditions of poverty, dependency, chronic unemployment and under-employment, rising community tensions, and social and economic disparity in areas of poverty and areas impacted by natural and unnatural disasters.
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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $37.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.6%; rating input score 96; 34th 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; 64th 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: 60.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.99; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $729K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $300K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.