MIKA Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200318338
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Tustin, CA, USA
Phone
7146793368
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,805
Expenses
$14,612
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Andrew Taylor (Chairman)
  • Jenna Tourje AICP (Board Member)
  • Monserrat Escobar (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mika's strategies for leadership and community development include after-school tutoring programs, Bible classes, English classes, adult leadership development classes, weekly youth groups, and annual community events. Mika collaborates with local churches, foundations, agencies, and organizations to further our mission in our city. There are currently over 200 families participating in Mika core activities.

What it reported doing in 2019

Prior to it's closure in 2019 - Mika's strategies for leadership and community development included after-school tutoring programs, Bible classes, English classes, adult leadership development classes, weekly youth groups, and annual community events. Mika collaborated with local churches, foundations, agencies, and organizations to further our mission in our city.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.1% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.