Crisis Intervention Services Dba Sierra Community House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942985554
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Incline Village, NV, USA
Phone
7752980010
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,832,127
Expenses
$6,543,257
Assets
$5,049,482
Liabilities
$831,512

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL BANCROFT (Executive Dir.): $156,248 total reported compensation
  • JIM MCHUGH (FISCAL DIRECTOR): $135,415 total reported compensation
  • Teresa Crimmens (Deputy Exec.Dir): $124,871 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We connect and empower our community through family strengthening, crisis intervention, hunger relief, and legal services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community engagement - sierra community house engages familes, individuals, classrooms, and local businesses through education and family strengthening. We connect community members to the help they need and empower them to be at the center of their own solutions by promoting their involvement and participation.the promotoras serve as liaisons between community members, health professionals, and social service organizations by providing resources and education around physical and mental health, parenting, and child development.promotoras are advocates, educators, mentors, community health outreach workers, and role models.the agency's prevention program provides violence prevention education in english and spanish to local school districts, businesses, and organizations in north lake tahoe and truckee. We also hold ongoing discussion forums and facilitate projects about violence prevention and healthy relationships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 4.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 12 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.