Foss Home & Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910573114
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tacoma, WA, USA
Phone
2537527112
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,442,933
Expenses
$245,500
Assets
$15,693,896
Liabilities
$38,727

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • R KEVIN MCFEELY (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • R KEVIN MCFEELY (PRESIDENT/CEO): $580,909 total reported compensation
  • DAVID HOFFMAN (VP FINANCE): $402,912 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Foss home and village's mission is to provide dignified, mission-driven care to older adults through continuum of senior living services. The organization's focus has been on the strategic planning and philanthropic groundwork required to reestablish a nonprofit senior living campus in the greater seattle area. Foss is actively pursuing donor partnerships, capital funding, and community engagement to launch a next-generation continuum of care. Proceeds from the asset sale have been preserved to seed this effort. The organization remains committed to its founding purpose: serving older adults with the dignity, community and mission-driven care that the region's growing senior population urgently needs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Nursing home and assisted living facility.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.2%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 64th 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: 98%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 63.93; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.2% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $193K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $581K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $261K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 3 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 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.