Los Angeles Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954378092
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3232331900
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Neighborhood Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$685,361
Expenses
$1,263,670
Assets
$2,736,561
Liabilities
$3,480,499

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create and enhance the economic wealth and capacity of residents and businesses in distressed areas of los angeles.

What it reported doing in 2011

To provide financial services and counseling to residents and businesses of south central los angeles

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th 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: 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: -84.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.27; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -71.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.