Cedar Oaks Retirement Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752240914
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2143769394
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$158,762
Expenses
$504,857
Assets
$664,164
Liabilities
$664,164

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charles L Lightner (President)
  • Marcus G Lightner (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Charles L Lightner (President)
  • Marcus G Lightner (Vice President)
  • Doris Henry (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Serving our community of Seniors by proving a safe environment of peace, love and family. Quality Life of Living is a top priority of the Cedar Oaks Retirement Center family and for the love ones that love them. Cedar Oaks also provides nutritional balance meals for senior citizens. Cedar Oaks Child Development Center has developed an educational structure in our community by Preparing & Educating each child Academically and spiritually in a safe environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cedar Oaks provides a cleaning and organizing service to our tenants. This service has been in existence since January, 2022.

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

REVIEW - The strongest available result is that the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 20
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.2%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 12
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -218%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.2% of revenue deployed · 11.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.