City of Refuge Sacramento

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462676243
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9169705164
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,920,559
Expenses
$1,917,303
Assets
$8,187,461
Liabilities
$7,412,873

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Loren Ditmore (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Loren Ditmore (CEO): $85,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

City of Refuge Sacramento, a community-based organization, exists to support people living in marginalized communities of Sacramento and to empower their ability to create a personal transformation that will lead to a healthy and thriving community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community Outreach: The epicenter of Community Hospitality and a place where tangible needs are met every day. Addiction recovery, counseling and Therapeutic programs, Exercise and Dance, Cafe 180, Drop-In Center hours and access to medical care for pregnant mothers, showers food and laundry for homeless, celebrations of life, baby showers, birthdays, yearly holiday events and much more.Refuge Housing and Client Advocacy: Emergency and long-term transitional housing for 198 adult, men and women and their 258 children experiencing homelessness. Client Advocacy is focused on 5 areas of need (pathway toward sustainable living, parenting/child care relationship, educational goals, workforce development, health access, and counseling/therapeutic services.Youth Engagement:96 families involved in educational assistance and after school programming at 2 motels providing housing. 250 youth involved in recreational sports and cheerleading programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% 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 - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.9%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.27; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.9% of revenue deployed · 26.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $501K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.