Cadbury at Lewes Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223681799
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-PF 2012
Location
Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
Phone
8564066229
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,747,303
Expenses
$15,781,035
Assets
$51,092,899
Liabilities
$69,707,828

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Victor D Amey (President and CEO)
  • CAROL HOLZMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

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 lewes, inc. Is a continuing care retirement community located in lewes, de that provides residential, assisted living and medical care to its residents. The residential facility consists of 130 independent living units, 45 licensed assisted living beds, and a healthcare center consisting of 40 licensed nursing 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 occupancy percentage was 90.7% for the independent living, 88% for assisted living and 93% for skilled beds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • 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: -7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.24; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.36; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $582K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $920K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.