California - Nevada Methodist Homes

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941312411
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108938989
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,672,472
Expenses
$24,405,307
Assets
$48,784,472
Liabilities
$70,441,818

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MINDY HAN (EMPLOYEE): $246,098 total reported compensation
  • ANNMARIE CHARLES (EMPLOYEE): $214,727 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT L LEEPER (VP & CFO): $168,694 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

California-Nevada methodist homes is a non-profit charitable corporation with a primary mission of enhancing the well-being of seniors for the remaining years of their lives through the creation and ethical administration of residential and health care facilities in which the independence, dignity, traditional values and individual rights of each person are held in high regard.

What it reported doing in 2020

The corporation operated two retirement residences that provided room and board, medical, personal, and health care services for an average of 275 residents during the year ended 6/30/21.

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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 11th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 67th 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: -24.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.44; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $246K · 9 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 32 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.