Live Like Jace Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993547983
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Laurel, MT, USA
- Phone
- 3609105639
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Cancer
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,709
- Expenses
- $12,093
- Assets
- $118,279
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KRISTI VAVROSKY (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KRISTI VAVROSKY (PRESIDENT)
- DARRELL VAVROSKY (TREASURER)
- LYNN SANDRETZKY (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the live like jace foundation is to nurture and strengthen family bonds by providing outdoor experiences for individuals and families who have fallen on tough times or been affected by a cancer diagnosis.
What it reported doing in 2025
The live like jace foundation successfully raised funds to support the jace way program. Program funds were used to provide a mountain bike and recipient plaque to luis mata, who, due to cancer treatment, had to use his dream bike savings to cover medical costs. Program funds were also used to provide a rifle to grace hemmer to support her participation in a longstanding family hunting tradition following cancer-related medical impacts. Foundation apparel was distributed to recipients and their families to support program visibility and community engagement. Additionally, the foundation contributed to flakesgiving, a local program which supplies thanksgiving meals to families in need, consistent with the foundation's mission to strengthen family bonding.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 19
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 87
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 5.3%; rating input score 5
- Program expense ratio: 42.5%; rating input score 42
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 87.6%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.78; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 5.3% of revenue deployed · 42.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.