Casa Serena

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952862385
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8059661260
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Mental Health Treatment

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,811,420
Expenses
$5,785,824
Assets
$7,328,614
Liabilities
$336,373

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ginger Woolf (President)
  • Rick Heyman (Vice President)
  • Lisette Fraser (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisette Fraser (CEO): $206,845 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2024

Casa Serena employs a two-phased residental program: women begin at Main House, a structured 90 day program, and can continue treatment at Millie's House for as long as clinically indicated. In both of these homes, women participate in extensive group and individual counseling. Casa Serena also offers special classes such as parenting education, family therapy, career counseling, yoga, meditation and art therapy. Casa Serena provides substance abuse and mental health therapy services, as well as coordinating case management meetings with social services, probation and parole officers. Each year Casa Serena serves over 300 women and their families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.