Vision New America Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770456192
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4085796011
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Minority Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,141,720
Expenses
$807,984
Assets
$377,247
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Liliana Li (Executive Dir.): $89,466 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Vision New America, Inc, aims to increase civic participation among underrepresented ethnic minorities, starting with the Asian Pacific American community, through our public policy internship programs, connection with highly recongized international universities offering education to our students, educational forums and various community events.

What it reported doing in 2016

1a. Selected many top (Avg. GPA above 3.0) high school students and many top (Avg. GPA above 3.0) college students who have demonstrated exceptional leadership and community service to be trained and placed in public policy related internships at elected official's offices and non-profit agencies at the city, county, state and federal levels over the summer as part of our Youth Leadership and Civic Engagement (YCLE) Program. This program focuses on developing emerging leaders and encouraging more youth to pursue government and public service as a career path. In the last 19th years, Vision New America has graduated more than 1,000 students who were places in more than 80 different partner offices, registered more than 10,000 new voters, completed more than 100,000 internship hours and served over 20,000 community service hours. 1b. Organized nonpartisan voter education and outreach activities, often in conjunction with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, to increase the civic participation of Asian Pacific Americans and to help register new voters. 1c. Organized community forums to start dialogue on relevant issues affecting the community in order to bring awareness and to help enhance leadership and communication skills for the students. The first annual community health fair was held on August 5, 2006, organized by 20 interns, 25 health organizations attended and over 1,500 people participated at the East Valley YMCA in San Jose. 1d. Need base scholarships are given to students to cover the program fee for being a part of our program.

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 84% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.6%; rating input score 94; 37th 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 81.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 158.6% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $755K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.