Dayspring Villa

Legal name: Dayspring Villa Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363933908
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Denver, CO, US
Phone
720-770-3553
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,959,966
Expenses
$2,050,646
Assets
$2,815,775
Liabilities
$4,241,022

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN HOLTZ (PRESIDENT/ASSISTANT TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN OLIVERIO (KEY EMPLOYEE): $3,914,407 total reported compensation
  • SARAH HERZOG (KEY EMPLOYEE): $615,023 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN DILLBERG (CHAIR - DIRECTOR): $398,942 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide compassionate, personalized assisted living care in a welcoming community where residents, families, and team members feel valued, respected, and supported.

What it reported doing in 2015

Dayspring villa, inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of franciscan ministries, inc., is a nonprofit organization formed on december 21, 1993 in accordance with the not-for-profit statutes of the state of Colorado for the purpose of providing housing and congregate services for moderate-income persons in denver, Colorado, with housing and congregate assistance from the Colorado dept of health care policy and financing's medical assistance program and grants from the state of Colorado and city of denver, Colorado.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.6%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.37; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.51; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 14 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3.9M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $182K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 84 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.