Cedar Lake Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611093278
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5024954946
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,016,543
Expenses
$1,865,776
Assets
$35,890,348
Liabilities
$373,044

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE TORZEWSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RICK DAVIS (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICK DAVIS (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $282,322 total reported compensation
  • MARGARET WAUGH (VP OF FINANCE): $187,919 total reported compensation
  • JULIE TORZEWSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $140,955 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our vision is of a community where those with and without disabilities learn to share and enrich each other's lives through meaningful interactions that cultivate mutual respect and unconditional love. Our mission is to offer highly compassionate, (see schedule o)

What it reported doing in 2025

Support and grants: cedar lake foundation holds, manages, invests and distributes funds to the subsidiaries of cedar lake, inc. Cedar lake foundation provides grants and financial assistance to cedar lake lodge and cedar lake residences for individuals supported by cedar lake. Cedar lake lodge operates intermediate care facilities serving 87 persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Cedar lake residences delivers a wide array of community-based residential options, community access, supported employment, adult day and other in-home support to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. During 2025, cedar lake foundation assisted 208 individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities through full or partial support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.5%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 49.1%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 46th 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; 63rd 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: 53.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.24; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.5% of revenue deployed · 49.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $915K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 9 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.