Casa De Las Campanas
Legal name: Casa De Las Campanas Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330371280
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
- Location
- San Diego, CA, US
- Phone
- 858-746-4618
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $69,291,200
- Expenses
- $52,674,514
- Assets
- $270,064,154
- Liabilities
- $181,897,496
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KIM DOMINY TERM 625 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KIM DOMINY TERM 625 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $330,327 total reported compensation
- DAVID JOHNSON (CFO): $251,342 total reported compensation
- DAYNA SPINA (SR RESIDENCY & SALES COUNSELOR): $231,274 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Casa is where residents can enjoy the retirement they desire. Our goal is to help them do that by striving to be the best Life Plan Community, providing the highest-quality care and services, employing friendly and well-qualified staff who are passionate about their work, and honoring the dignity and worth of all our residents and employees.
What it reported doing in 2024
During the year, casa provided continuing care for independent living, skilled nursing, assisted living, dementia, and home health. In the skilled nursing unit this also included ancillary services to disabled and elderly residents as well as to non-casa residents. Overall the population averaged 532 residents.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.13; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th 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: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $330K · 17 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.3M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.