Lincoln Glen Manor for Senior Citizens

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941646750
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4082653222
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,775,810
Expenses
$9,003,063
Assets
$5,840,472
Liabilities
$866,076

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES MORTENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES MORTENSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $231,284 total reported compensation
  • LOREN J KROEKER (SECRETARY/SKILLED NURSING): $190,088 total reported compensation
  • AYE THWIN (DIRECTOR OF NURSING): $173,083 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Housing for the aged; skilled nursing; assisted living care and memory care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Independent living for 54 retirement units; 59 skilled beds w/ 24 hr care; assisted living for 31 units; memory care center with 28 units. Salaries and other costs of patients/residents are included in column b. The organization also offered nursing services, assisted living, and memory care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.3%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.3% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $173K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.