Vital Communities Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030355283
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
White River Jct, VT, USA
Phone
8022919100
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Coalitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,577,902
Expenses
$2,498,831
Assets
$1,251,777
Liabilities
$344,833

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $150,406 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Vital communities engages upper valley people, organizations, and communities to create equitable solutions to our region's challenges, with a focus on those disproportionately impacted by them.

What it reported doing in 2024

Housing: during fy25, we supported upper valley planners, developers, employers, municipal leaders, property owners, and community groups so that they can work together to create more places to live. Projects included piloting the creation of accessory dwelling units, particularly by low- and moderate-income homeowners, the development of a resource guide and networks to support bipoc home ownership, hosting forums with stakeholders that promote housing solutions and action plans, organizing a multi-sector housing advisory committee, collecting data on home creation to inform solutions, supporting the upper valley loan fund, a $9 million project of the corporate council, and engaging upper valley communities to examine and reform zoning and land use regulations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.1%; rating input score 91; 39th 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: 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: -58.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 56.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.