Yakima Valley Community Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 200697012
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Yakima, WA, USA
- Phone
- 5094577616
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,471,905
- Expenses
- $7,369,953
- Assets
- $87,464,491
- Liabilities
- $8,025,647
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHARON MIRACLE (CEO/BOARD SECRETARY)
Highest reported compensation
- SHARON MIRACLE (CEO/BOARD SECRETARY): $240,955 total reported compensation
- LISA FRESCO (CFO): $158,735 total reported compensation
- LINDSAY BOSWELL (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $133,651 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our work is focused on equity in education, health, and civic engagement. We address complex conditions and systems, and provide opportunities for those who have been historically and frequently overlooked and left behind. Our role is to guide strategic investments, provide community leadership, and grant to organizations for tangible impacts in the lives of those that call central Washington home.
What it reported doing in 2024
A community leader in education, civic vitality, and health supporting equitable access to opportunity with special attention to those who are frequently left out and left behind.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 59
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 46.7%; rating input score 47; 11th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 29.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.87; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 47 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 43 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 47/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.