Valley Oasis

Legal name: Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953582588
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lancaster, CA, US
Phone
(661) 945-6736
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,287,794
Expenses
$23,355,326
Assets
$5,415,354
Liabilities
$2,691,331

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sarah Perry (CEO)
  • James Lott (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Genevieve Awad-Kamel (CalWorks Attorney): $198,164 total reported compensation
  • Sarah Perry (CEO): $177,925 total reported compensation
  • Toni Severino (CFO): $158,741 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Valley Oasis is a community-based organization dedicated to empowering people, transforming lives, fostering innovations for healthy communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council currently operates numerous homelessprograms including; The Coordinated Entry System TAY/Youth population, CoordinatedEntry System for Adults/Singles, and the Coordinated Entry System for Families.The Council provides emergency shelter and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence their dependent children. The Council also provides comprehensive services such as a 24-hour crisis hotline, emergency transportation, outreach programs, therapeutic day care, as well as group and individual counseling for adults and children.See Schedule O for more detail.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

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: Pass
    • 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: -0.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $331K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.