Latin Grammy Cultural Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464770436
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Doral, FL, USA
Phone
3055760036
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Music

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,737,214
Expenses
$3,389,961
Assets
$3,839,225
Liabilities
$1,916,998

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAQUEL EGUSQUIZA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MANUEL ABUD (MEMBER OF THE BOARD (FROM 8/24)): $1,147,475 total reported compensation
  • RAQUEL EGUSQUIZA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $383,243 total reported compensation
  • NANNETTE VELEZ (MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS AND DIGITAL MEDIA): $171,931 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The latin grammy cultural foundation, through scholarships, fellowships, grants and education programs, furthers international awareness and appreciation of the significant contributions of latin music and its makers to the world's culture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Music education programs like latin grammy in the schools bring music professionals and well-recognized talent to share their professional experiences in the music industry with students and give them advice on the importance of music and arts as an integral part of their education. In partnership with a sponsor and an artist, musical instruments are donated to schools with a music program.

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 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 28th 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: 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: 9.3%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.