La Voice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954781974
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2133847404
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,698,385
Expenses
$2,851,726
Assets
$3,433,541
Liabilities
$348,423

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REV ZACHARY HOOVER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REV ZACHARY HOOVER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $188,071 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL BISHOP (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $148,459 total reported compensation
  • ANGELICA MORTEL (LEAD COMMUNITY ORGANIZER): $128,669 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Transform los angeles into a county that reflects the human dignity of its communities, with racial equity and abundant life for all. We develop spiritually grounded teams that elevate their stories into the public narrative to drive systemic change.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program services - lav's program services provides comprehensive support services to help low-income individuals and families in los angeles achieve self-sufficiency and overcome poverty. Movement building: as people of faith, we believe that it is our right and our duty to build a los angeles county where all people live in abundance. Our statewide faith votes campaign leverages the resources of our grassroots base by training leaders to educate, engage and turn out their own congregations and communities to vote. Congregations commit to becoming 100% voting congregations, with leaders ensuring that their community turns out to vote, while providing education about the issues at stake and the impacts on people's lives. We developed a 'faith-forward' narrative that led with our organizational values and pushed a multi-faith framework, positioning us as thought-leaders and a powerful faith voice. Our leaders developed winning strategies within their communities (including in key regions, san gabriel valley, san fernando valley, long beach, la city, inglewood/south bay). In 2024, we had three ballot priorities: la county measure a, in which we played a key role that led to its passage, proposition 5, and an opposition campaign to proposition 36, along with non-partisan da education work. We engaged over 14,000 voters, had over 3,000 pledges to vote, trained 300 leaders and had a commitment from 47 congregations. Leadership development: power is organized money and organized people, so in 2024 la voice deeply invested in the development of its grassroots leaders and youth cohort. Through our leadership assemblies, a multi-day leadership training, alongside other training's and events, our leaders built foundational organizing skills. La voice's youth cohort continued to develop the next generation of community organizers.equipped with these tools, our leaders came together to ratify our five-year power plan, held listening sessions, research meetings, and advanced our faith votes campaign to win la county measure a, and prepare us for the county landscape of 2025. Faith in housing: in 2024, the faith in housing (fih) team continued its work to move congregations towards empowering communities and investing in social enterprise, e.g., sacredness of land, moral economy, and the health and growth of our cities. 7 congregations moved towards rfps (requests for proposal) to solicit developer interest in building affordable housing projects on congregation-owned land, incorporating last year's pipeline of 300 proposed units of housing into completed feasibility studies. By the end of 2024, fih had hosted a black church summit, a mosque summit, and a presbytery summit, including 40 congregations, with at least 20 moving towards signed agreements to build affordable housing. Fih also conducted research meetings with tribal leaders, indigenous housing efforts and native american power building groups.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.5%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 29th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.5% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 12 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.