Embury Apartments Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237125951
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Phone
5185873600
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,369,550
Expenses
$570,120
Assets
$16,430,361
Liabilities
$54,071

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J BRIAN NEALON (CEO)
  • TARA PLEAT (President)
  • DEBORAH DAMM-O'BRIEN (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • J BRIAN NEALON (CEO): $321,200 total reported compensation
  • SHELLY AMATO (CSO): $193,779 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE LAHOFF (CFO): $135,832 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

EMBURY APARTMENTS OFFERS AFFORDABLE INDEPENDENT HOUSING TO SENIORS, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MAINTAINING INDEPENDENCE THROUGHOUT THE AGING PROCESS. Embury Apartments are owned by Embury Associates, LP and managed by Embury Apartments Inc. There are 192 units in total made up of Section 8 and Section 236 HUD housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

During 2024, embury apartments offered affordable housing to approximately 220 seniors, with an emphasis on maintaining independence throughout the aging process.the wesley community as a whole has embraced a philanthropic culture. On behalf of the wesley community, management donates over 800 hours per year of their own time to local organizations to further support the not-for-profit needs in our community. We have staff members regularly contributing their own time to the alzheimer's association, the saratoga planning board, saratoga artsfest, the saratoga springs lions club, saratoga rotary, leadership saratoga and the saratoga county chamber of commerce, to name a few. Additionally, the wesley campus regularly hosts the activities and meetings of over 15 not-for-profit organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.2%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 58.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 28.82; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.2% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $470K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $321K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.