Christian Care Communities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
610445828
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisville, KY, United States
Phone
800.662.1738
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,380,779
Expenses
$35,151,801
Assets
$101,746,600
Liabilities
$25,883,155

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY LYNN SPALDING (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY LYNN SPALDING (PRESIDENT/CEO): $253,365 total reported compensation
  • JANET LOVITT (EXEC DIRECTOR - CORBIN): $191,464 total reported compensation
  • JAMIE WOODS (VP FINANCE): $179,181 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Christian Care Communities is Kentucky’s largest faith-inspired, non-profit provider of affordable senior living and long-term care for older adults. Founded in 1884, we are dedicated to compassionate care that nurtures the body, mind, and spirit. Our commitment to Faith, Care, and Family is foundational to our work.

What it reported doing in 2024

Garden homes: as the number of older adults continues to grow, so does our commitment to providing opportunities for seniors to live independently in our caring community setting, with a real sense of security and belonging. Our garden homes play a key role in the continuum of care that we provide within our communities. Our chaplains minister to the needs of our residents and their families, while our activity directors ensure that all residents in our communities have an opportunity to share in fun, educational, and stimulating events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Assets have declined or grown slowly and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.5%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 30.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.89; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.5% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $30.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $253K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.1M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 8 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.