Elderwise Learning

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383591933
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Phone
7343404691
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,314
Expenses
$69,023
Assets
$63,483
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Mary Miller (Chair)
  • Toby Teorey (Vice Chair)
  • Georgette Hansen (Secretary)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Elderwise Learning is to offer opportunities for lifelong learning and camaraderie to adults in southeast Michigan.

What it reported doing in 2025

Elderwise offered 3 terms of classes for seniors, each term offered an average of 55 two hour sessions. We have about 270 active members and each session is attended by about 20 members. Our goal is active, engaged and socialized seniors and we are achieving that goal. We are finally rebounding from the loss of attendees we experienced during Covid.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.