Good Shepherd-fairview Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133386383
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Binghamton, NY, USA
Phone
6077242477
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$595,151
Expenses
$411,875
Assets
$1,547,686
Liabilities
$425,115

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON SANTIAGO (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON SANTIAGO (CEO): $433,238 total reported compensation
  • MARY WASSEL (COO): $261,720 total reported compensation
  • ULYSSES S ARNOLD II (CFO): $249,261 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The good shepherd-fairview foundation, inc. Is a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with fgs, inc., good shepherd vilage at endwell, inc. And good shepherd-fairview home, inc. The foundation provides financial support to good shepherd-fairview home for adult care facility residents with limited financial resources. This is done through a yearly fundraising campaign called the living care fund. This campaign includes gifts to the annual living care fund and to the living care fund endowment. The foundation also allocates funds for grants to the home for various capital expenditures, resident wellness programs, staff education/training, and employee scholarship/tuition programs. In addition, the foundation offers scholarships to area students enrolled in healthcare curriculums at local colleges. It provides community grants to organizations as seed money for new programs or to expand an existing program that will enhance the life of the elderly in its community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation's objective is to provide financial support for various programs in place at its affiliated companies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.8%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.76; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.8% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $230K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $433K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.