Latino Film Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 475010246
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Glendale, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8186962009
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Development Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,385,241
- Expenses
- $6,427,773
- Assets
- $4,438,620
- Liabilities
- $912,433
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RAFAEL A GUERRERO (CEO)
- AXEL CABALLERO (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIKA SABEL (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $183,650 total reported compensation
- RAFAEL A GUERRERO (CEO): $173,990 total reported compensation
- AXEL CABALLERO (CEO): $166,507 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the latino film institute youth cinema project is to enhance a students' education through its project based learning that produces competent, resilient, and real world problem-solvers and bridges the achievement and opportunity gaps by cteating lifelong learners and the entertainment industry's multicultural future.
What it reported doing in 2023
Latino film institute youth cinema project is a statewide, project-based learning educational program that develops creativity and reinforces literacy in 4th-12th grade public schools through the art of filmmaking. We partner with school districts, adminstrators and faculty to ensure the program supports common core standards and overall learning objectives. We provide industry professionals, teacher training, curriculum outlines, and workplace exposure beyond the classroom.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.