Hrca Housing for Elderly Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042543731
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6173258000
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $11,248,278
- Expenses
- $9,488,179
- Assets
- $17,734,291
- Liabilities
- $51,842,251
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ADAM SCOTT (CEO (EFFECTIVE 06/2025))
- LOUIS J WOOLF (PRESIDENT AND CEO (THRU 7/2023, RETURNED 5/2024 TO 6/2025))
- KIMBERLY J BROOKS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SENIOR LIVING)
- RACHEL LERNER ESQUIRE (CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CP)
- STEPHEN M POST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - JACK SATTER HOUSE (THRU 5/31/24))
- STEVEN LANDERS (PRESIDENT AND CEO (7/2023 - 5/2024))
Highest reported compensation
- LOUIS J WOOLF (PRESIDENT AND CEO (THRU 7/2023, RETURNED 5/2024 TO 6/2025)): $1,170,292 total reported compensation
- STEVEN LANDERS (PRESIDENT AND CEO (7/2023 - 5/2024)): $1,092,867 total reported compensation
- KATELYN QUYNN (CHIEF DEV OFF & VP BOARD REL): $733,570 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of hrca housing for elderly, inc. (dba jack satter house) is to honor our elders by respecting and promoting their independence, spiritual vigor, dignity and choice by recognizing that they are a resource to be cherished. As part of our mission, we accept special responsibility for the frailest and neediest members of our community who are most dependent on our care. The jack satter house seeks to fulfill its mission by: - managing quality senior housing through innovation and leadership - providing quality health care for residents via an on-site clinic and 24/7 on-call services - facilitating positive social interaction to improve physical, mental, and social health, and - creating opportunities for residents to connect with local educational and assistance programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Hrca housing for elderly, inc. (dba jack satter house) in revere combines independent, nondenominational apartment living with onsite services that promote an active, healthy life. The community is designed to give senior residents multiple opportunities to engage with each other, support each other, and work together for the good of the community. The community is located directly across the boulevard from revere beach, allowing for panoramic atlantic ocean views from almost every apartment. It is convenient to boston's culture, shopping, and public transportation as well as the scenic north shore. As a hebrew seniorlife community, residents have access to a full spectrum of support and services that ensure continuity of health care, encourage a healthy, independent lifestyle and emphasize physical and emotional wellness. Our community at a glance: - located along revere beach, with atlantic ocean views - 266 apartments, including 47 efficiencies, 202 onebedroom units and 17 two bedroom units - open to all qualified eligible persons aged 62 or older regardless of race, color, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, national origin, disability and familial status - state of the art fitness center with regularly scheduled wellness programs, -computer learning programs, and - weeknight meal program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.92; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 16 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.