Home Nursing Agency Affiliates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251518698
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Altoona, PA, USA
Phone
8149465411
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,979,006
Expenses
$6,399,523
Assets
$7,170,504
Liabilities
$6,710,615

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT R PACKER (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • GERALD MURRAY (DIRECTOR): $1,103,684 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LOVELACE (DIRECTOR): $676,767 total reported compensation
  • DEBORAH BRODINE (DIRECTOR): $619,366 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Home nursing agency affiliates is referred to as "hna affiliates" within this form 990. Form 990, part i, line 1 and part iii, line 1 - organization's mission as provided in its articles, the corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for exempt purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended(or the corresponding provision of any future united states internal revenue law)(the "code"), and, in furtherance thereof, operating exclusively for the benefit of and to support home nursing agency visiting nurse association and home nursing agency community services, each of which is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, provided that each such corporation is an organization described in section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) of the code.

What it reported doing in 2013

The expenses of the home nursing agency affiliates leadership and strategic assistance are included in part ix - statement of functional expenses, column c - management and general expenses. See schedule o also see schedule i supporting services as well as providing leadership and strategic assistance to home nursing agency visiting nurse association, home nursing agency community services, and quality first healthcare, llc. Form 990, part iii, line 4b home nursing agency synopsis: since its humble beginnings in the late 1960s, home nursing agency health professionals continue to listen and transform the delivery and integration of health care through innovative care models and operations. Through collaborations with all levels of community and civic organizations commingled with exceptional leadership, clinical excellence, foresight, and advancement of person-centered services in rural Pennsylvania, home nursing agency (hna) is one of the nation's largest and most diverse not-for- profit, post-acute and community-based wellness agencies, and affiliated with the upmc community provider services ("upmc") in july 2013. Upmc and hna have come together not only to advance the health and welfare in all of the communities currently served by hna, but also to expand existing services into new regions in Pennsylvania. Collectively, home nursing agency & visiting nurse association and home nursing agency community services devotion to best practices, along with constant and tireless front-line advocacy at the local, state, and national levels, have secured both dollars and credibility for services to support and benefit the region's most vulnerable citizens, headquartered in the homes and community-based sites throughout 15 counties in Pennsylvania, hna's 900+ employees served more than 23,000 residents in 2013-2014 alone with remarkable care. Committed to hna's core principles of customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, quality, leadership, and profitable growth, employees have created a culture of excellence, and have named hna as a best place to work in pa (2004-2010, 2012, and 2013). Quality first healthcare llc (qfh) operated a personal care home with a 75 bed capacity in blair county, pa, during the year ended june 30, 2014. In addition, qfh owned american home health, inc., a home health agency located in northeast Ohio, serving 1,000 clients in the 2013-14 fiscal year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 7th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -60.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 53.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 21 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $173K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 64 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.