La Casa Dominicana the Dominican House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270368189
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Vineland, NJ, USA
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$294,076
Expenses
$223,338
Assets
$79,138
Liabilities
$17,541

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LUIS E RODRIGUEZ VICENTEE (PRESIDENTE): $7,425 total reported compensation
  • MIGUEL ESCOTO (TREASURY): $3,692 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Free esl and naturalization class to the communities

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.1%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 66.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $223K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $7K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 29 current checks pass · 12 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Liabilities line sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.