Latino Community Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820911954
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,137,594
Expenses
$2,305,341
Assets
$3,138,325
Liabilities
$92,666

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gilda Pedraza (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gilda Pedraza (Executive Director): $104,950 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Organization supports Latino-serving and Latino-led nonprofit organization and the Latinx community as a whole in Georgia. This support includes advocacy work, program development, technical assistance, grant making, and more. Our mission is to be a catalyst for investment, collaborative work, and positive narrative with and within the Latinx/Hispanic community in Georgia.

What it reported doing in 2025

Expanding people's democracy through advocacy, civic participation, and coalition building. We promote, support, and invest in civic participation to champion community issues and increase representation and visibility of our community and contributors. Form and support policies that create opportunities for Latino families, parents, workers, entrepreneurs, students, and children. Organizer and Fund Latinos for Democracy, a non-partisan voter protection and education effort conducts research and consolidate vital information about culturally appropriate and bilingual services available to the Latin-X community in Georgia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 71.1%; rating input score 71; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.5% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 29 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.