Emerald Heights

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911261904
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Redmond, WA, USA
Phone
(425) 386-7700
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,141,718
Expenses
$51,462,013
Assets
$399,968,696
Liabilities
$263,626,905

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RONALD D SCHAEFER PRESIDENT (& CEO (AS OF SEPTEMBER 2025))
  • AL CHAMBARD (INTERIM CEO (THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2025))

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA HARDY CHIEF (STRATEGY OFFICER (THROUGH MAY 2025)): $507,703 total reported compensation
  • DENISA FEDDERSEN (CFO): $359,627 total reported compensation
  • RONALD D SCHAEFER PRESIDENT (& CEO (AS OF SEPTEMBER 2025)): $309,226 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance the lives of older adults by providing a continuum of diverse life plan services that inspire personal growth, wellness, and fulfillment in every stage of retirement.

What it reported doing in 2025

Independent living senior housing and services: eastside retirement association (dba: emerald heights) provides safe and secure senior housing and services to approximately 564 independent living residents in the organization's 375 apartments. The organization provides many support services, including meal services provided in a central dining room, fitness and exercise classes, equipment and swimming pool, wellness programs, social programs, a wide variety of resident activities, both on site and other locations, transportation to medical appointments and grocery stores, banks, and special activities, spiritual services, chapel and an on-site chaplain. All residents have unlimited access to assisted living and skilled nursing health care.(continued in schedule o)emerald heights was financed with bonds issued by the Washington state housing finance commission. Through a separate regulatory agreement with the Washington state housing finance commission, emerald heights has set aside 25% of all units for lower-income households as defined by the commission. Emerald heights is a type a extensive contract life plan retirement community. As a type a facility in the state of Washington, no resident of emerald heights may utilize tax-payer funded public assistance programs such as medicaid. Emerald heights provides financial assistance to residents who, for reasons beyond their control, become unable to pay their monthly service fees.as a not-for-profit, mission-driven organization, revenues generated in excess of expenses are invested and held as reserves to ensure all current and future contractual obligations can be fully met, to replace facility and program assets as needed and to allow prudent expansion of the mission. Emerald heights provides opportunities for residents and staff to interact within the emerald heights community, the greater redmond community and beyond by establishing joint resident/staff committees, establishing close ties with community facilities such as redmond high school, and developing community outreach services and programs consistent with its mission. Emerald heights recruits, develops and retains competent and caring staff who share the organization's principles, values and standards by maintaining open communication and stressing team work that builds up the spirit of community, and developing standards of performance for evaluation based on position descriptions, and providing fair, competitive compensation and benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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. Liabilities are high compared with assets and the available information about grant readiness federal audit leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 57th 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; 65th 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: 19.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.77; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $44.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $508K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.4M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.