Carroll Lutheran Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521127007
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Westminster, MD, US
Phone
(410) 453-1655
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,119,308
Expenses
$40,022,762
Assets
$123,513,869
Liabilities
$100,981,883

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY W BRANCH (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • ANN MCDERMOTT (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY W BRANCH (PRESIDENT/CEO): $562,742 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN POWELL (VP FINANCE): $281,181 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH CONNELLY (VP OF OPERATIONS): $264,264 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Guided by our mission, vision and values, we offer seniors of any faith exceptional experiences, from lifestyle to care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Additional support services - all levels of care are supported by on-campus access to medical care (including primary care physician, podiatry, dermatology, audiology, lab services and radiology), therapy services, nutritional food service, home health services, diverse religious services, transportation, maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry services. Organizational governance is accomplished through a process that encourages resident participation.carroll lutheran village is dedicated not only to its residents, but also to its staff, the health professions, and the community at large. Residents conduct an annual appeal to raise funds for staff scholarships. Sunday chapel offerings are often designated to provide financial support where it is critically needed. A compassionate response fund exists and is administrered within the governance structure. The village offers support to other non-profit organizations by encouraging staff and residents to act in volunteer, advisory or board roles.local colleges are supported financially, specifically to enhance programs that train and develop skilled healthcare professionals. The local hospital is supported financially as we are engaged in a growing, mutually beneficial partnership to provide quality healthcare services and information to residents of carroll lutheran village and to members of the greater community in need of healthy aging support.internally, meeting space on the campus is offered for use by non-profit community groups. Clinical training is provided for local colleges and tech schools. More specifically, the village supports carroll community college by having our skilled nursing facility serve as the clinical training site for new gnas. We also partner with the secondary school system's career and technical center by havning gna interns work in our skilled and assisted living units. Organizational governance is achieved by volunteer board members with skillsets that compliment the need and mission of the organization. Board members include two resident board members. The resident association is encouraged to partner with management to enhance resident life and other services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 76.8% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $32.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $563K · 16 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $9.7M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.