Heritage Area Agency on Aging

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830545648
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Phone
3193985559
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,121,754
Expenses
$4,307,761
Assets
$2,057,497
Liabilities
$322,570

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARBARA J WERNING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BARBARA J WERNING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $126,055 total reported compensation
  • JILL M SINDT (COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT DIRE): $107,967 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER L KNUDTSON (FISCAL DIRECTOR): $92,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Heritage area agency on aging (heritage) serves the needs of older adults, caregivers, their families and people with disabilities in the following ways: planning: developing and implementing plans that identify and meet the needs of older adults in our service area. Funding: obtaining federal, state, and other (i.e. Grants, etc.) funding for older-adult programs. Advocating: standing strong for older adults' needs at the national, state and local levels.

What it reported doing in 2024

The home-delivered nutrition services section of the older americans act authorizes meals and related nutrition services for older individuals who are homebound. Home-delivered meals are often the first in-home service that an older adult receives, and the program is a primary access point for other home and community-based services. It is important to note that this program provides much more than food; it provides a wholesome meal plus a safety check, and sometimes the only opportunity for face-to-face contact or conversation for that day.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -4.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.