Immanuel Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 824366126
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- Kalispell, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4067529243
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Support N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $568,388
- Expenses
- $363,729
- Assets
- $758,860
- Liabilities
- $4,450
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASON CRONK (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JASON CRONK (CEO): $389,818 total reported compensation
- CARLA WILTON (COO): $232,607 total reported compensation
- TERYN WALDENBERG (CFO): $212,738 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
At the Immanuel Foundation, we believe that every senior living in Montana has the right to a safe, secure home in an engaging and supportive community. We work every day to make that vision a reality and your financial support is crucial. 60% of our Skilled Care residents are low income, Medicaid qualified. Immanuel Foundation raises funds to support these seniors in need. Donate Now! Corporate Sponsors. The mission of the Immanuel Foundation is to cultivate and secure charitable gifts so that Immanuel Living can provide safe homes in vibrant communities for Montana’s seniors in need.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation provides services to, and holds assets in support of, immanuel living at buffalo hill ("ilbh"). We are now raising funds to upgrade 43 rooms at the retreat, where over 50% of the seniors are low-income, medicaid-qualified. We also support employees through emergency funds, gift funds, and educational assistance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.3%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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; 52nd 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: 36%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.09; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 32.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 67.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $364K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $390K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.