Home Nursing Agency Community Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251517533
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Altoona, PA, USA
Phone
8149465411
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,973,851
Expenses
$15,589,630
Assets
$6,692,659
Liabilities
$2,247,691

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT PACKER (CEO / PRESID)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT PACKER (CEO / PRESID): $566,245 total reported compensation
  • GREGG LAVERICK (SVP / CFO): $385,347 total reported compensation
  • AMY SWINDELL DO (DIRECTOR): $226,988 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 community services is referred to as "hna community services" or "hna cs" 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 501c3 of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, or the corresponding provision of any future united states internal revenue lawthe "code", including, without limitation, establishing and operating community health programs, services or clinics that will contribute to the overall health and well-being of all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, age or national origin. Home nursing agency is dedicated to providing the highest quality of customer service with a sense of warmth, kindness, and individual pride. Form 990, part iii, line 4, exempt purpose achievement narrative uncompensated care to hna cs clients is determined as the differen

What it reported doing in 2013

Behavioral health, community health and wellness services provided to 13,333 clients in home nursing agency's southern central Pennsylvania market area. For the year ended june 30, 2014, home nursing agency community service provided 839,243 of uncompensated care to its behavioral health, community health and wellness clients. The behavorial health function did receive 3,442,228 of contributions, gifts, and/or grants in the year ended june 30, 2014, reported in line 1 of part viii, not included in the revenue total above, per part iii instructions. See schedule o for description of methodology to compute uncompensated care. Whether it's at home, school, or at one of our community sites, hna community services are committed to ensuring families have the resources to remain in their homes and in their communities. Over the past year alone, the hna cs staff has served as leaders, and/or are currently serving multiple boards, committees, and community grass roots associations including head start health advisory committee; Pennsylvania community providers association; nurse-family partnership supervisors and administrators groups, as well as the following local county-based efforts: blair county: healthy blair county coalition lifestyle committee and early childhood sub-committee blair county health and welfare council, marketing director penn state cooperative extension advisory board blair county social services advisory board may is mental health month committee blair county human rights committee, chair blair county providers association, co-chair local intra-agency coordinating council (licc) maternal child symposium planning committee teen pregnancy prevention team week of the young child cambria county: cambria county health and welfare council communities that care committee cribs for kids committee executive board committee local intra-agency coordinating council (licc) child find committee penn cambria school district literacy team cambria county child death review team laural highlands breastfeeding coalition cambria county week of the young child centre county: centre county council for human services local children's team cenclear health advisory committee centre county partnership for community health and obesity/diabetes, sub-committee chamber of business and industry of center county local interagency coordinatiing council (licc) leadership centre county centre county child death review team clearfield/jefferson counties: local intra-agency coordinating council (licc) kidd council huntingdon county: huntingdon county healthy communities partnership huntingdon county human service council huntingdon county prevention network early head start planning/ continuous improvement committee 2013-14 accomplishments of hna cs behavioral health, community health and wellness. Partnering with the local national alliance on mental illness (nami) chapter and county mh/mr, hna cs continues to offer ancillary service called 'opportunity drop in' which welcomes any individual in the community that lives with a diagnosed mental health disorder (including co-occurring) to socialize with their peers. Held weekly, over 60 individuals are now 'dropping in' at this highly valued peer-run service offered to the community-at-large. Hna cs school-based children/adolescent program serves over 700 students from 11 school districts, throughout 59 satellites. 100% compliance from pa department of health/welfare: - tartaglio personal care home - blended case management - adult case management - peer support services - center for counseling home nursing agency programs/services including behavioral health, drug & alcohol, early intervention, and nurse-family partnership, featured in regional newspapers and publications expanded early intervention program to centre county all behavior specialists in the children's community health center have become licensed to provide services to those diagnosed with autism began training under pcit (parent child

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 33rd 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: 2.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.7% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $13.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $566K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $320K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 62 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.