Cadbury at Cherry Hill Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222182468
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
Phone
8564066229
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,265,220
Expenses
$7,461,159
Assets
$1,499,928
Liabilities
$753,453

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Victor D Amey (President and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Victor D Amey (President and CEO): $581,907 total reported compensation
  • Arnold L Weiner (CFO): $328,435 total reported compensation
  • Megan Nessell (Chief Human Resources Officer): $244,463 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To Provide excellent, comprehensive care for seniors in settings where both residents and staff can thrive.

What it reported doing in 2016

Cadbury at cherry hill, inc is a continuing care retirement community located in cherry hill, nj that provides residential assisted and medical care to its residents. The resident's facility consists of 138 independent living units, 64 assisted living beds units, and a healthcare center consisting of 105 skilled beds. Its philosophy is to equip itself to meet the physical, emotional, recreational, social and spiritual needs of its residents.for fiscal year 2017, the average occupancy percentage was 72.8% for the independent living, 71.4% for assisted living and 77.1% for skilled beds. (june census)

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 68th 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: 70.5%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $582K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $205K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 4 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.