Yes in My Back Yard
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 320610451
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2159001457
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,355,788
- Expenses
- $2,680,165
- Assets
- $2,137,259
- Liabilities
- $617,518
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SONJA TRAUSS (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DI)
Highest reported compensation
- LAURA FOOTE (DIRECTOR): $133,503 total reported compensation
- SONJA TRAUSS (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DI): $113,895 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To end the housing shortage and achieve affordable, sustainable, and equitable housing for all.
What it reported doing in 2024
Yes in my back yard and our project yimby law review public records to identify cities that may be violating housing laws. We then inform cities of the possible violations, and, if necessary, file litigation to ensure cities follow the law and housing is built. We train people to effectively advocate for abundant, affordable housing in their neighborhoods. We host events, share housing policy research and insights, and develop resources advocates can directly use in their communities to influence local elected officials, planning commissions, and their neighbors to support more homes. We often partner with yimby action to create and disseminate these resources. Advocates gather insights from their work in their communities and share those insights with legislators and state agencies. This helps inform improvements to existing housing laws with the goal of making them more effective at getting more homes built faster, especially in neighborhoods with plenty of amenities such as high-paying jobs and high-quality schools.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
- 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.8%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: -13.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 36.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 30.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 96.8% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.