Pueblo Nuevo Education and Development G

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811668428
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2134133838
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,629,896
Expenses
$10,451,134
Assets
$100,678,006
Liabilities
$2,050,657

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADRIANA ABICH (CNCA CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ADRIANA ABICH (CNCA CEO): $341,866 total reported compensation
  • MARGARITA DOMINGO (VP OF HR): $192,538 total reported compensation
  • NATASHA BARRIGA-SIPERSTEIN (VP OF STRATEGIES & OPERATIONS): $164,313 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote, support, benefit, replicate, carry out the purposes of, and provide leadership education, program development, research and professional development to camino nuevo charter academy (cnca), grupo nuevo los angeles, and other public charter schools or education programs or schools as may be established to provide education based on the educational and teaching concepts, methods, models, techniques, systems and materials of cnca.

What it reported doing in 2024

Resource-development and capacity building to support the cnca mission and programs that extend beyond the publicly funded, instructional k-12 program, yet are crucial to students' early childhood education, academic, college and lifelong success. All private dollars raised, capacity building offered, and support services delivered by pnedg are done so to enrich the k-12 instructional program cnca offers and to benefit cnca students and alumni and to maximize their fullest academic potential.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.07 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 10.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.63; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.9% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $342K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $860K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.