Seabury Resources for Aging®
Legal name: Episcopal Church Home Friendship Inc C/o Seabury Resources for Aging
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 520907224
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2024146310
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,556,600
- Expenses
- $4,643,634
- Assets
- $14,494,990
- Liabilities
- $15,797,662
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRAIG MCCULLOUGH (PRESIDENT)
- MARCUS BRAXTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAWN QUATTLEBAUM (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- DAWN QUATTLEBAUM (CEO): $225,300 total reported compensation
- BELINDA DAVIS (MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $162,094 total reported compensation
- REGINALD RAY (COA): $114,887 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Seabury Resources for Aging® is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that serves more than 6,000 families and older adults in the Greater Washington, DC region. Seabury is a 100+ year old organization, and a trusted leader providing a broad range of support to residents, members, and clients. Our Mission Seabury’s mission is to provide personalized, affordable housing and services to help older adults in the greater Washington, DC area live with independence and dignity.
What it reported doing in 2024
Episcopal church home, friendship, inc. Was organized in 1967 under the provisions of the Washington, dc code for the purpose of constructing and operating housing and related facilities for the elderly. The entity was financed through the u.s. Department of housing and urban development under section 202 of the national housing act and consists of 180 units. Such entities are regulated by hud as to rent charges and operating methods.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
- 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.12; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.09; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $153K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.