Youth Empowerment Shelter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464777480
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
The Dalles, OR, USA
Phone
5417054777
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,116,987
Expenses
$952,110
Assets
$1,195,595
Liabilities
$361,372

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Livia Christensen (Executive Director)
  • Lindsey White (President)
  • Josh Sendejas (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Livia Christensen (Executive Director): $84,823 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide youth in crisis a place of physical and emotional safety while assisting them to build positive relationships and develop their individual potentials.

What it reported doing in 2025

Shelter - The Youth Empowerment shelter program known as the YES House operates 24 7 365 and is licensed by the State of Oregon to provide basic shelter and support services to youth ages 10-19. Youth can be accepted into this program for both crisis and longer term emergency housing. Residents receive case management peer support and access to a variety of educational and vocational completion options. The program is voluntary with permission of a parent or guardian.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 55% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $735K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 42 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.