Naleo Educational Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521212849
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Monterey Park, CA, USA
Phone
2137477606
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,944,416
Expenses
$12,027,492
Assets
$7,734,131
Liabilities
$2,388,128

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARTURO VARGAS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARTURO VARGAS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $258,012 total reported compensation
  • ERICA MARTINEZ (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $230,320 total reported compensation
  • JUAN C VARGAS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $227,646 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 naleo education fund is the leading nonprofit organization that facilitates full latino participation in the american political process, from citizenship to public service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy, research and advocacy - provides a wide array of professional and leadership development programs for latino elected and appointed officials. The naleo policy institute provides key training and technical assistance on a spectrum of high-priority latino issues, and the summits bring together elected officials from across the united states to address topics in education, health and governance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.6%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $9.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.