Assumption Community Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800276405
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 7633472200
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $612,406
- Expenses
- $525,099
- Assets
- $393,483
- Liabilities
- $239,383
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JERRY CARLEY (CEO OF BHS)
Highest reported compensation
- JERRY CARLEY (CEO OF BHS): $1,087,851 total reported compensation
- KEVIN RYMANOWSKI (CFO & TREASURER): $600,393 total reported compensation
- ANNELIESE PETERSON (COO OF BHS/BOARD CHAIR): $464,824 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We provide our residents with a dynamic continuum of care encompassing the social, spiritual, physical and mental aspects of the individual, steepen in the benedictine values of hospitality, stewardship, respect and justice. Our vision is be a committed leader recognized as providing quality senior-living.
What it reported doing in 2024
Benedictine home health cold spring provides a range of services to support community members, including home-delivered meals, community support services, and caregiver assistance. The organization provides home health services to individuals in the community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 64% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 73
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $454K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 32 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.