Mahi International
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201855839
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9093199000
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Rural Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,334,237
- Expenses
- $1,250,758
- Assets
- $286,531
- Liabilities
- $58,434
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN SCHROER (President)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN SCHROER (President): $4,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To Increase the quality of life of the people in underserved communities. We focus our resources on healthcare outreach and development, education, and food security programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
During the current fy, bienestar is wellbeing program continued to partner with mahi international as the fiscal sponsor. The program distributed 11,945,323 lbs of free fresh produce (all vegetables and fruits), donated by food forward and the farmlink project, and recorded through both 501c3 organizations. Over 250 distributions in schools and community based organizations in California, in el centro, el cajn, perris, moreno valley, riverside, san bernardino, compton, boyle heights, chino, rialto, ontario, redlands, chino, needles, trona, and sacramento among others offered nutritious food to over 90,000 individuals and families while also connecting them to health services through partnerships with the inland empire health plan and molina healthcare.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 65
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.6%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $162.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.3%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.6% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 3 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $144K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.