Independent Living Alternatives Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311141620
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Columbus, IN, USA
Phone
8123143420
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$187,270
Expenses
$146,098
Assets
$394,941
Liabilities
$332,655

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHANNON LACOURSIERE (PRESIDENT)
  • DAN MCNEELY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEPHANIE ESTELL (DIRECTOR)
  • GEOFF MCKIM (DIRECTOR)
  • STEPHANIE LAFONTAINE (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide affordable, effective behavioral health care within an accessible system of services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Independent living alternatives, inc was organized to construct, own and operate a 21 unit apartment community in richmond, Indiana, known as cumberland apartments, pursuant to section 202 of the national affordable housing act, as amended. The corporation has entered into the standard fha regulatory agreements governing the operation of the project with the federal housing administration section of hud.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 66

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.7; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.84; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.