Mission Cultural Center For Latino Arts
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942576484
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4158458849
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,132,628
- Expenses
- $2,252,314
- Assets
- $431,297
- Liabilities
- $335,864
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Dr Martina Ayala (Executive Dir.): $127,964 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission cultural center for latino arts ("mccla") was established in 1977 by artists and community activists with a shared vision to promote, preserve and develop the latino cultural arts that reflect the living tradition and experiences of chicano, mexican, central and south american, and caribbean people. The mccla makes the arts accessible as an essential element to community development and well being. Mccla retails low cost arts education classes, cultural and artistic activities, screenprinting services, and space for creative expression, cultural celebration and community engagement. Mccla achieves so throug service fees and admissions, individual donors, foundations, partnerships with the city of sf (sf arts commission), and project sponsors.
What it reported doing in 2024
Support to artists & community stayingconnectedaudio visual equipment was also acquired to meet the new demand, and staff wasassigned to support the transition and provide necessary technical assistance to the artists and teachers in our schedule. Through peer training staff navigated through the remote and technical aspects to host classes, meetings, presentations, participation in leadership groups and webinars, and to invite, register and provide hosting services to participants. The board of directors also held its 2nd zoom public comment meeting in april 2021. Mccla trained artists and teachers in online programming, offering hosting and tech support during the transition; provided rental and discounted space to local artists, and groups needing to meet social distancing requirements when appropriate; actively engaged artists and teachers during the lockdown period, compensating them 100% artist fees.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 34
- Sustainability: 17
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 52.3%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 52.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.