Vintage House Multi Purpose Senior Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942745586
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sonoma, CA, USA
Phone
7079960311
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,519,624
Expenses
$1,140,063
Assets
$9,956,219
Liabilities
$32,191

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Seyms (Executive Director)
  • Stacie Morales (Executive Director)
  • Gera Vaz (President)
  • Holly Seaton (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stacie Morales (Executive Director): $104,226 total reported compensation
  • David Seyms (Executive Director): $46,875 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of vintage house is to provide and promote services and activities to seniors which enhance their dignity, support their independence and well-being, and encourage their involvement in the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Organization serves over 2000 individuals annually with an ever-increasing array of programs designed to meet the evolving needs of this rapidly growing demographic. The Organization also supports other local nonprofits through shared volunteers, collaborative program planning, loaned use of equipment, and free or low cost meeting space. Funding comes predominately from memberships and donations, fundraising events, investment income, facility rental and program fees.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $262.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.73; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $779K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.