Institute on Aging
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942978977
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, US
- Phone
- (415) 750-4111
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $100,033,280
- Expenses
- $96,914,403
- Assets
- $60,214,362
- Liabilities
- $47,343,237
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- J THOMAS BRIODY (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- J THOMAS BRIODY (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $697,555 total reported compensation
- ROXANA BLADES (CFAO): $462,302 total reported compensation
- LAURIE PANIAN (CPO): $346,276 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To enhance the quality of life for older adults through comprehensive, compassionate services that promote independence, dignity, and well-being.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community care programs - see description on schedule o community care programs includes linkages/ioa case management, community living fund (clf), home safe, pg housing, san mateo home safe, santa clara clc, and all of our calaim programs: these are all care management programs which provide assessment and coordination of services for all sorts of individuals who fit at least one of the following categories: disabled, homeless, serious mental illness, substance use disorders, skilled nursing residents, at risk of institutionalization, or those in need of assistance with activities of daily living. These individuals live in san francisco, san mateo, alameda, santa clara, riverside, or san bernardino counties. Some of these individuals are in need of short-term help which might include installing grab bars, shopping assistance, or intervening in an emergency situation. Funded in part by the department of aging and adult services, department of health care services, and the local managed medical plans. These programs all seek to provide access to needed services to enable a person to continue living independently.through these care management programs, a social worker visits a client at home and works with the client to determine what services might be helpful. With this information, a care plan is developed and appropriate services are arranged. The social worker continues to stay in close touch, working with the client to adjust the care plan as necessary. Some of these programs have access to a wide array of services, including:-transportation-home safety modifications-medical care-housekeeping-legal assistance-senior companion-home-delivered meals-money management-day activity programs-counseling-government benefits. The average case load for the case programs is 25-40 clients. The community living fund (clf) and some of the calaim programs assist with the transition of individuals with limited incomes who have spent years living in hospitals or care facilities and who wish to return to living in the community. Clf/calaim also provides services to individuals living in the community who are at imminent risk of institutionalization. Although patients may wish to live independently, and have the right to make that choice, the transition from institutionalized care to independent living can be very difficult. Patients face ordinary life tasks such as meal preparation, bill paying and organizing medical care for the first time in many years. To make this transition safe and possible, clf/calaim provides services from trained professional nurses and social workers. Social workers and nurses provide service coordination and, when necessary, clf/calaim can purchase items and/or refer to community support services to meet the needs of an individual to enable independent living.san francisco county also supports a number of community based programs which provide either consultative or assessment services for san francisco residents. In terms of consultative services, the department of disability and aging services funds citywide/adrc, elder abuse, forensic center, high-risk self neglect, elder death review, and clinical collaborative services which provide individuals of various specialties including nurses, social workers, and program development specialists who all support programs that are available to consult on cases or concerns that are present with individuals in san francisco. Additionally, the department of disability and aging services funds home delivered meals, respite caregiver support and support at home which are all assessment services in san francisco county where our assessment teams determine the care needs of individuals to help connect them to needed resources.the department of health care services funds a program known as home and community based alternatives in which a team of nurses and social workers perform assessments and create plan of treatments for individuals that are at a skilled nursing level of care
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 70% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $52.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.79; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $80.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $698K · 24 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.7M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.