Cherry Village Benevolence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481019570
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Great Bend, KS, USA
Phone
6207922165
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,332,149
Expenses
$3,591,953
Assets
$1,964,276
Liabilities
$3,053,469

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JEREMY LEWIS (DIRECTOR)
  • PAM LEWIS (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • ERIN LEWIS (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cherry village benevoence inc operates a nursing home to provide care for thoser persons with health related needs. The nursing home provides a full range of services including therapy, dietary, nursing, personal care and medical.

What it reported doing in 2016

A full range of nursing services is provided to the nursing home residents. Therapy, dietary, nursing & medical care are provided at the lowest feasible cost with any excess income used only for adult home care purposes.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 4th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.55; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.