Tenemos Que Reclamar Y Unidos Salvar La Tierra-south La
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 421687057
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3232334118
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,277,480
- Expenses
- $1,814,950
- Assets
- $19,329,768
- Liabilities
- $8,545,106
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chul Gugich (Board President)
- Glauz Diego (Vice President)
- Oscar Monge (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Oscar Monge (Executive Director): $117,106 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 work with low-income community residents to transform the built environment and social conditions in South Los Angeles by: serving as a steward for community-controlled land; being a catalyst for values-driven, community-serving development; building awareness and
What it reported doing in 2024
Tenemos que Reclamar y Unidos Salvar La Tierra-South LA works to etabish community control over economic resources. The organization acquires land to be held collectively, and in perpetuity, by low-income community residents. It seeks to stabilize the South LA neighborhoods where pressure from downtown revitalization, University of Southern California expansion, and light rail transit have driven up real estate prices and rents, and long-term low-income neighborhood residents are being threatend with displacement. The organization also seeks to bring community-controlled and community-serving development to the disinvested neighborhoods south of Martin Luther King. The organization also works in the areas of transportation and recreation in order to support healthy living and economic vitality.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 66.7%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 20.3%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.65; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 29.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 66.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 6 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.