FellowshipLIFE

Legal name: Friends Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873685420
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Basking Ridge, NJ, USA
Phone
9085803805
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,196,460
Expenses
$10,694,910
Assets
$34,608,306
Liabilities
$35,765,370

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN G LAWRENCE (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • KELLI MILLS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN G LAWRENCE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $835,231 total reported compensation
  • MARK F MAZZELLA (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $317,552 total reported compensation
  • KELLI MILLS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $224,897 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide a culture of excellence and hospitality, supporting older adults to live their best lives through innovative senior living services and compassionate care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Friends village at woodstown operates a continuing care retirement community which currently provides housing, healthcare and other related services to elderly residents through the operation of a 61 bed assisted living facility and 75 independent living apartments and cottages. We are committed to partnering with our local community and having a positive impact through collaboration and active participation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -72.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.24; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.03; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 39.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $835K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.