Friends House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526043038
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Sandy Spring, MD, USA
Phone
3019245100
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,077,057
Expenses
$2,646,392
Assets
$10,762,829
Liabilities
$2,864,045

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN HARRINGTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN HARRINGTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $198,196 total reported compensation
  • VIRGINIA RUFF (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $118,548 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Founded on quaker values and open to seniors of all backgrounds and abilities, our mission is to build a community through caring. By connecting residents with other seniors, volunteers and staff, we nurture the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of all individuals.

What it reported doing in 2016

Located on 62 gently rolling acres with 100 apartments and 32 cottages, friends house offers older adults an affordable and fulfilling retirement experience in a secure and caring setting. Operating under the care of religious society of friends, we welcome senior adults regardless of race, color, disability, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, national origin or familial status. We are guided by these quaker values: simplicity, peace and nonviolence, integrity, community, equality, stewardship and sustainability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% 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 - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 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: 14%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.07; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $685K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.