Japanese Home for the Aged

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952916028
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2138735700
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$545,329
Expenses
$1,118,899
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEONA HIRAOKA (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • GENE S KANAMORI (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEONA HIRAOKA (PRESIDENT/CEO): $198,544 total reported compensation
  • DIANNE BELLI (FORMER CHIEF ADMIN OFFICER): $194,404 total reported compensation
  • GENE S KANAMORI (VICE PRESIDENT): $119,126 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See part i, line 1

What it reported doing in 2017

Keiro's key programs for the period ending march 31, 2018 included:1) conducted or organized wellness programs, health screenings, health education, and provided 1,468 hours of classes serving 461 individuals. Programs included courses on fall prevention, memory enhancement, managing ongoing health conditions, fraud avoidance, alzheimer's/dementia, finding long-term care options, understanding medicare and communicating with health care professionals.(continued on schedule o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.4%; rating input score 88; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -105.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -31.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 15 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 28 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 28 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.