Jennings Senior Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113754507
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Phone
9259567400
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$719,979
Expenses
$772,244
Assets
$3,301,493
Liabilities
$14,937,374

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sean Kelly (CEO)
  • Soraya Diaz (President - CARING Housing Ministries)
  • Martin Lakatos (Vice President - Development)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sean Kelly (CEO): $1,459,056 total reported compensation
  • Eduardo Salvador (CFO): $906,991 total reported compensation
  • Rachel Vranich (Chief Legal Officer / Secretary): $562,741 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Jennings senior housing, inc, is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation formed to construct, own, and operate an independent living complex specifically for low income seniors located in santa rosa, California.

What it reported doing in 2024

Jennings senior housing, inc (the "project") is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation formed on january 27, 2005 to construct, own, and operate an independent living complex specifically for low income seniors located in santa rosa, California. The project was completed in may 2008 and occupancy began in june 2008. The project is operated under section 202 of the national housing act, as amended. Such projects are regulated by the united states department of housing and urban development (hud) as to rent charges, operating methods and use of assets. Hud and various other agreements are in place which dictate maximum income levels of tenants and provide rent restrictions through the year 2048. The project consists of 54 partially subsidized units and one manager's unit. 57 people were served from this program during the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.2%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 35.4%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.28; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.52; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.2% of revenue deployed · 35.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $274K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.