NAMI Sacramento

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942861509
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9168905467
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$387,023
Expenses
$403,124
Assets
$206,192
Liabilities
$11,664

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Luis Avila (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Eric Bailey (Executive Dir.): $48,626 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NAMI Sacramento provides peer-led education programs, support groups, outreach and a welcoming community for people living with mental illness and their families or caregivers. Our goal is to promote anyone seeking help into an improved state of wellness; to thrive, not just survive.

What it reported doing in 2025

We grew support programs by 30% over the past year. We had the Mentorship program become a part of TPCP outpatient services. We had over 2000 people come through the support groups in 2025 and over 100 class graduates. We started NAMI Community, which brings people together beyond just Signature Programs. We were able to send several people to the NAMI CA conference, and trained over 10 new program facilitators / teachers in the last year. These volunteers are the future of our affiliate, and we nurture their growth by providing them with unique opportunities to become leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 52.8%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55% of revenue deployed · 52.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $213K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.