Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

Legal name: World Trade Center Association Los Angeles - Long Beach

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330190964
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, California, US
Phone
(213) 622-4300
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$103,697
Expenses
$598,628
Assets
$100,445
Liabilities
$726,897

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN CHEUNG (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN CHEUNG (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $426,154 total reported compensation
  • KENDAL R TURNER (EXEC. VICE PRES./CFO): $277,888 total reported compensation
  • ALISON CLARK (VP BUS. ASST. & INT'L TRADE): $188,703 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 drive inclusive economic growth and promote prosperity for the Los Angeles region through data-driven initiatives and strategic partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2024

The specific purpose of this corporation is to educate and provide consulting services toward improving world trade and international commerce in the region, providing certain services and resources including but not limited to: a library of trade publications and other information services; educational programs and seminars on trade and international business; translation services, and promote good public relations.

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.

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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -477.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 7.24; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $541K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $426K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.