Foundation for Eldercare

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264755439
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Newtown Square, PA, USA
Phone
6105201100
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Reported finances

Revenue
$539,428
Expenses
$466,556
Assets
$5,502,042
Liabilities
$2,402,425

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • John G Berg (Chairman Trustee): $100,000 total reported compensation
  • Deborah A Wissman (VP Admin - Trustee): $22,063 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide modern, affordable housing to facilitate aging-in-place for low income, handicapped and senior citizens

What it reported doing in 2020

Foundation scaled down its existing housing operations in Pennsylvania throughout TY 2020, finally disposing of all income producing houses by September 2020. Foundation was able to transfer all of the houses without financial liability for the tax liens which, when added to mortgage balances, exceeded the market value of the houses. The income and expense figures inserted here reflect a prior operation in Pennsylvania which has been discontinued. New, low income housing is being developed in MD and DE, venues in which the real estate tax burden allows operations at a positive cash flow for Foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for member benefits.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.3%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.79; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.3% of revenue deployed · 28.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $131K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.