Laguna Honda Hospital Volunteers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
946065339
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mountain View, CA, USA
Phone
6504505400
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,004,062
Expenses
$229,412
Assets
$8,297,260
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER A JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH S LERER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PETER A JOHNSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH S LERER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG B COLLINS (TREASURER)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To lift the spirits, engage the minds, and enrich the lives of san francisco bay area's vulnerable elderly and adults with disabilities by rendering services and funding non-medical programs and services for the benefit of residents and patients of the laguna honda hospital and rehabilitation center ("lhhrc"), and/or other similarly situated institutions and organizations in the san francisco bay area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fall prevention: vivalon is supporting its falls prevention program. Launched last year, the program offers two distinct evidence-based series of classes 'bingocize and matter of balance. Both programs are approved by the administration for community living/national council on aging (acl/ncoa) and combine fun and social engagement with health education and exercise. The curriculum includes group discussions, mutual problem solving, role-play activities, exercise training, assertiveness training, and a few homework assignments. Participants learn about the importance of exercise in preventing falls and practice exercises to improve strength, coordination, and balance. Participants also conduct a home safety evaluation and learn to get up and down safely. Additional topics include home safety, assertiveness, developing positive strategies for change, reducing barriers to exercise, identifying physical risk factors for falls, personal action planners, recognizing misconceptions about falls, and moving from self-defeating to self-motivating thoughts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.9%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $94.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 77.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 36.17; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.9% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $135K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.