Loomis Communities Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042706070
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
South Hadley, MA, USA
Phone
4135325325
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,077,353
Expenses
$18,924,156
Assets
$124,386,013
Liabilities
$107,717,255

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARGARET R MANTONI (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • KRISTEN LAMOUREX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MAUREEN O'TOOLE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LOUIS IANNUCCILLI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARGARET R MANTONI (PRESIDENT & CEO): $344,197 total reported compensation
  • MAUREEN O'TOOLE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $189,009 total reported compensation
  • LOUIS IANNUCCILLI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $162,065 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the loomis communities is to open the door of positive aging of older adults by providing a continuum of high quality services which promotes independence and meets the changing needs of people throughout the aging process.

What it reported doing in 2024

Loomis house retirement community holds certain assets and obligations associated with the previously operated retirement community. Loomis house and community based services operates as a division of loomis communities, delivering an array of personal support services wherever they call home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.5%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.57; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.5% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $13.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $344K · 27 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.