Annandale Congregate Housing

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363566531
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Annandale, MN, USA
Phone
3202743737
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$235,628
Expenses
$184,293
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Debra Reitmeier (Administrator/President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Debra Reitmeier (Administrator/President): $167,334 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Quality care and services that shape the future for the dynamic needs of the people in our area.

What it reported doing in 2020

The Organization operates a 22 unit congregate housing facility that serves the housing needs of the 55 and older adult population in Annandale and the surrounding communities. Residents have access to prepared meals and 24 hour emergency response from the nursing staff in the attached skilled nursing facility. They also have priority in the event that they require a nursing home stay. The Organization also rents approximately half of its units to Annandale Care Center (a.k.a. Centennial Villa Assisted Living) to be used as assisted living units. Through this arrangement, the Organization has been able to help in meeting the need for assisted living housing in not only Annandale, but also the other area communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.9% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $150K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.