Mid Willamette Valley Community Action Agency

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237056987
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5035856232
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,261,186
Expenses
$69,379,294
Assets
$49,350,684
Liabilities
$21,846,070

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIMMY JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ASHLEY HAMILTON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JIMMY JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $231,993 total reported compensation
  • KAOLEE HOYLE (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $191,826 total reported compensation
  • ASHLEY HAMILTON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $148,982 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Empowering people to change their lives and exit poverty by providing vital services and community leadership

What it reported doing in 2024

The arches project encompasses our shelter, housing, and street outreach services, guiding clients from homlessness to stable housing and ultimately self-sufficiency. Our comprehensive approach includes emergency shelter, resource navigation, housing placements, and essential support services aimed at individuals facing homlessness and housing instability in marion and polk counties. During this period, we served a total of 7,105 unduplicated individuals in rental assistance programs. Our energy and weatherization services programs include liheap (low-income home energy assistance program), oeap (Oregon energy assistance program), olga (Oregon low-income gas assistance program), and oliee (Oregon low income energy efficiency). These programs aim to prevent utility shut-offs and reduce the energy burden on households. We also offer energy education to help clients lower their energy consumption and better manage their energy usage. During the fiscal year, the program provided over $5 million in assistance to prevent utility disruptions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.