Rise Phoenix Rise Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474845739
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Longmont, CO, USA
Phone
3036520468
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Mental Health Center

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,765
Expenses
$1,298
Assets
$595
Liabilities
$467

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Traci Carrano Jones (Executive Director)
  • Quinn Fegel (President / Treasurer)
  • Melissa Green (Former President)
  • Heather Carrigan (Former President / Treasurer)
  • Gillian Gage (Secretary / Vice - President)

People named in this filing

  • Traci Carrano Jones (Executive Director)
  • Karen ReNae Anderson (Program Director)
  • Quinn Fegel (President / Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide a safe, stigma-free environment where mental health peers can have the opportunity to interact with companion animals as well as participate in various activities that promote healthy mental hygiene. The vision of Rise Phoenix Rise is to share the benefits of rescued animals with those struggling with mental illness. Rescued animals are magical healers who can be beneficial to the mental health community. Together the companion animals and the mental health peers can "rise from the ashes" of their struggles into wellness.

What it reported doing in 2020

Recovery Cafe is the program with the most expense. This program offers a weekly meeting with a therapy dog and a peer support specialist to a group of people. In this meeting, we discuss different issues that can affect someones day to day life. The only restriction is the participants have to be over the age of 18, otherwise, this group is open to everyone, and free to our participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.6%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 18
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.6% of revenue deployed · 18.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $240 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.