Gozo En El Espiritu Santo

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203584989
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Huntington Park, CA, USA
Phone
3235834396
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,252
Expenses
$18,016
Assets
$3,299
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as a means of promulgating,

What it reported doing in 2014

The organization has provided food and fulfilled other needs of families in the area and provided support to those who approach us during their critical moments.

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: 9
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.2%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 1.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 65.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.2% of revenue deployed · 10.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.