Cedar Community
Legal name: Benevolent Corporation Cedar Community
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 390928211
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- West Bend, WI, United States
- Phone
- 262.306.2100
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $43,715,683
- Expenses
- $46,839,296
- Assets
- $144,587,984
- Liabilities
- $111,842,286
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOE CARLSON (PRESIDENT)
- CHUCK O'MEARA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- NICOLE E PRETRE (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NICOLE E PRETRE (CEO): $358,777 total reported compensation
- SARAH MALCHOW (CAO): $204,390 total reported compensation
- TODD MILLER (VP OF FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE): $165,142 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 model Jesus love by creating life-enhancing relationships, services, and environments. Cedar Community is located on five campuses on over 550 total acres, with more than 900 residents, nearly 400 team members, and 300+ volunteers. Over the years, the diligence and dedication of many people has made us one of the preferred faith-based senior living communities in Wisconsin. Learn more about our mission, guiding principles, leadership team, and vibrant history below. Cedar Community logo.
What it reported doing in 2024
Cedar community provides assisted living services in 3 locations, with 153 units in residential care apartment complex facilities and 60 units in community based residential facilities. It provides a secure environment, dining services, activities, nursing support, social & religious services. Cedar community provided services during the year to 271 individuals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% 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.
- 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: 84
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $41.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $359K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.1M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.