Benchmark Healthcare of Dane County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391946225
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, TN, USA
Phone
4234785953
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nursing, Convalescent Facilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,730,931
Expenses
$2,685,287
Assets
$1,368,500
Liabilities
$4,058,763

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS D JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION/CHAIR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS D JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION/CHAIR): $417,014 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The filing organization provides affordable and quality nursing services to its residents of its 45-bed skilled nursing facility.

What it reported doing in 2024

Benchmark healthcare of dane county is organized for the purpose of operating a 45-bed skilled nursing facility which provides affordable intermediate and skilled nursing services to the residents of black earth, Wisconsin and the surrounding area. During the current year, there were 8,098 resident days.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.97; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 76.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $417K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $292K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.