Vna Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951641969
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8059655555
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Health Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,394,638
Expenses
$35,205,320
Assets
$6,104,660
Liabilities
$7,400,508

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIERAN A SHAH (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIERAN A SHAH (PRESIDENT & CEO): $472,307 total reported compensation
  • JO ANN MACK (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $305,949 total reported compensation
  • KAREN WALLACE (CFO): $272,623 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Vna health provides home health and hospice services to patients in santa barbara and the surrounding area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Serenity house is an inpatient 18-bed hospice facility owned and operated by vna health, and it is the only one of its kind in southern California. When hospice care at home becomes difficult or stressful, vna health offers serenity house as an alternative home away from home. Our serenity house team includes board certified physicians in hospice & palliative medicine, registered & licensed vocational nurses, certified home health aides, medical social workers, bereavement counselors, chaplains, a chef, and hospice-trained volunteers. Patients are cared for in a tranquil and homelike setting. Each private room allows patients to be surrounded by loved ones throughout their time at serenity house.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.21; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.1% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $27.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $472K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.6M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.