La Posada at Green Valley
Legal name: La Posada at Park Centre Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860828160
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Green Valley, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 520-428-1099
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $53,188,214
- Expenses
- $49,270,126
- Assets
- $400,773,765
- Liabilities
- $341,033,361
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JONI CONDIT (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- LISA ISRAEL (FORMER PRESIDENT EMERITUS)
Highest reported compensation
- LISA ISRAEL (FORMER PRESIDENT EMERITUS): $532,738 total reported compensation
- JONI CONDIT (PRESIDENT/CEO): $455,338 total reported compensation
- ELIZABETH ERNST (SRVP/COO): $355,143 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A steadfast mission to serve
What it reported doing in 2024
Home and community based, the organization provided 4,296 person days of adult day care on site for mentally frail elderly; provided 4,984 no charge senior lunches on site and provided 11,652 days of child care on site. La posada offers the community connect application for the smart phone whcih had 6,136 users connecting people to available services in green valley. These services are subsidized by grants and donations from la posada residents and the community of green valley.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.9%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 60
- Fundraising efficiency: $301.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- 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: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.13; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 59.9% of revenue deployed · 59.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $29.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $533K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.