Illinois Valley Senior Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931030686
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Cave Junction, OR, USA
Phone
5415926888
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$235,958
Expenses
$153,504
Assets
$1,274,208
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Levison (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rhonda King (Director): $13,194 total reported compensation
  • Wendy Glasgow (2nd VP): $6,658 total reported compensation
  • Jean Shubert (1st VP): $6,103 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Illinois Valley Senior Center (IVSC) is to serve as a social outlet for senior citizens, age 55 or older, and their spouse or significant other; encourage friendship between IVSC members and introduce senior newcomers to the community; promote recreational and social programs interesting to senior citizens; promote money-raising activities to finance the IVSC's needs; and, promote and deliver services for improving the quality of life for senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2025

Events are hosted on a monthly basis for the membership and staffed by volunteers. Events consist of potlucks, concerts, and various other social activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.5%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.3; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.5% of revenue deployed · 64.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.