Cape Visiting Nurse Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800612629
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Swainton, NJ, USA
Phone
7322246868
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Health Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,761,205
Expenses
$3,075,456
Assets
$1,370,824
Liabilities
$3,047,921

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY ANNE MCINTYRE (PHYSICAL THERAPIST): $120,391 total reported compensation
  • JESUS I MORE JR (PHYSICAL THERAPIST): $119,098 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cape visiting nurse association, inc. Is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping individuals and families in achieving their best level of well-being by providing compassionate, coordinated, and innovative care in their homes and communities.

What it reported doing in 2015

The organization provided home health and hospice care to the people in its service areas. During 2015, care was provided to approximately 1,100 home care and hospice patients with total units of service of approximately 14,400. Together with its affiliated nonprofit organizations, cape visiting nurse association has continued to sustain its mission by providing community benefit and community-based programs to the people of cape may county, New Jersey to manage their health and well-being. Irrespective of circumstance, the organization provided services through multiple programs to uninsured, underinsured and disenfranchised patients of the community served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.22; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.9% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $369K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.