Vista Rise Collective

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942598256
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA
Phone
5302645306
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,333,996
Expenses
$2,520,816
Assets
$1,676,322
Liabilities
$633,971

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALISHA RAGUSA (Vice President)
  • SANDRA SANTANE (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHELCEE THOMAS (Executive Dir.): $124,869 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Vista rise collective is committed to promoting a violence free community through education and advocacy to address domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and basic needs. Vista rise collective values: we commit to honoring 1) the clients by empowering them through compassionate and respectful support, 2) oursevles with mutual respect, understanding and appreciation, 3) the community by promoting peace and non-violence for a better life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dv - domestic violence 24-hour crisis intervention and counseling, emergency shelter and transitional housing, food, clothing, transportation and referral, accompaniment and advocacy throughout the medical and legal processes, social services and other services, legal services, supervised visitation and safe exchange, prevention / community education. Donated services from volunteers were received for this program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 78.6%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.9% of revenue deployed · 78.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.