Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Orange County Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900100601
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Ladera Ranch, CA, USA
Phone
7149534289
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$224,611
Expenses
$183,534
Assets
$241,335
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REUBEN FRANCO (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • REUBEN FRANCO (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BETANCOURT (TREASURER)
  • FIDEL GOMEZ (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the hispanic chamber of commerce of orange county education foundation is to complement the orange county hispanic chamber of commer's work in economic development by supporting academic and professional education throughout orange county. We serve our community by offering programs which promote education, encourage business development and provide leadership training.

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth chamber program (ycp) - a large number of college students are involved in the educational programs some of our programs include six round table seminars on topics ranging from business etiquette, networking and resume building, mock job interviews etc. We provide guest speakers to the youth chamber members that discuss the concerns of the students and their future employment. Our goal is to provide the students some exposure to the business and professional community and guide them to internship opportunities in their field of study. These programs and internships provide the students with actual work exposure in their field of study.

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 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 57.4%; rating input score 57; 44th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 18.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.4% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.