Urban Vision Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474238129
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4153859376
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Temporary Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,095,562
Expenses
$1,023,693
Assets
$93,282
Liabilities
$5,000

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gabriel Baldinucci (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gabriel Baldinucci (President): $40,000 total reported compensation
  • Dawn Kelly Piper (Director): $37,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of Urban Vision Alliance, an innovative nonprofit that believes eliminating street homelessness is possible with currently available resources if we break down the traditional barriers to ending homelessness, is to mobilize the private sector and build broad private-public coalitions to align on a single, citywide plan.

What it reported doing in 2024

Urban Vision Alliance (UVA) is a nonprofit committed to ending street homelessness through collective action and collaboration between public and private sectors. UVA addresses fragmented approaches to homelessness by breaking down silos and aligning all stakeholders through a digital platform that enables transparency, progress tracking, and resource matching. The platform centralizes efforts, reducing costs, and speeding up timelines to help cities create actionable plans to reduce street homelessness. The model is scalable and replicable, creating a practical way to deliver more housing and improved services for more people at lower costs.Marin County Chapter: We mobilize people and organizations from the private sector to create large scale plans that expands facilities and programs to manage homelessness. To that end, we spent 2023 building a new chapter in Marin County and developing relationships with County and City officials. We also focused on recruiting companies in the housing design/development industry to provide pro bono and discounted services to build specialty housing with services, mostly on free or low cost land. Creating the alliance with a vision for a large-scale solution driven by private sector experts catalyzes a culture change that inspires others to join in and support the growing plan.UVA Digital Platform: Local homelessness related projects are often uncoordinated as is information about them. To develop an adequate and effective city or countywide homelessness related housing project management system, we need tools to align diverse stakeholders and to coordinate and track new housing projects. We also need an easy way for businesses and citizens to see and contribute to the portfolio of projects. We developed the beta version of the web-based platform that will enable cities and counties to more easily coordinate large scale homelessness initiatives by aligning stakeholders, coordinating and communicating the plans, mobilizing the private sector to participate, and tracking and reporting progress. It will be an online place where people go to learn about and participate in large scale homelessness solutions for their city or county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 107.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57% of revenue deployed · 61% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $624K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.