Sutter Yuba Homeless Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462438264
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Yuba City, CA, USA
Phone
5306325761
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,322,124
Expenses
$2,208,867
Assets
$3,428,013
Liabilities
$3,042,142

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christian Sachs (Past President)
  • Brynda Stranix (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Johnny Burke (Executive Dir.): $88,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help for the basic needs of the homeless and precariously housed in yuba sutter counties, including, but not limited to, feeding and providing shelter for the homeless. To address issues affecting the homeless in the community and work on building partnerships and coordination of services among agencies/groups who serve the homeless population in the region.

What it reported doing in 2024

FY 6/30/2025The Sutter Yuba Homeless Consortium (SYHC) continues to manage the Coordinated Entry System for Yuba and Sutter Counties. The system identifies, assesses, refers and connectshomeless individuals and/or families to housing or other needed services. Servicesprovided at Coordinated Entry include mental health counseling services, job skillsand job search training, ready to rent classes, medical assessment, and referrals, time and money management classes and more. SYHC continues to manage the local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and report data to both state and federal agencies, as well as local jurisdictions. SYHC was able to work with Managed Care Providers to increase referrals for Cal AIM clients to open more housing opportunities. Referrals made from partners through the HMIS system led to hundreds of residents achieving permanent housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 25th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.