Zambrano Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453951663
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3056829386
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$226,073
Expenses
$236,246
Assets
$37,331
Liabilities
$15,239

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSE ZAMBRANO (PRESIDENT)
  • MARIA GARZA (CEO)
  • ANN MARGARET SANCHEZ (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN MARGARET SANCHEZ (CEO): $102,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To develop, promote and empower social innovative and educational programs where the disenfranchised societies can strengthen democracy, equality, economic development, arts and culture.

What it reported doing in 2015

The foundation held many democracy forums throughout different locations in Florida state including miami dade college, nova southeastern university, and the venezuelan american chamber of commerce. Topics discussed include: "forum for democracy in venezuela", "supporting in state tuition equality in Florida", "tuition equality / daca support', "economic development opportunities for small business accross the hemisphere", and "highlighting the importance of peace and human rights around the world". Noncash contributions received: 2,884.80 from quest offices for facilities rental, 700.00 from ana g. Mendez unversity for facilities rental, 210.00 from costco for refreshments and food, 18,000.00 form influence communications for management and marketing services, 10,000.00 form massi solutions llc for management services, and 3,700.00 from prestige gallery for art paintings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 55%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.5%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -36.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 55% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $130K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.