Lutheran Hillside Village Foundation C/o Lutheran Senior Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371371314
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149689313
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,345,666
Expenses
$1,587,121
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM MARLES (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • PHIL KING (FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ADAM MARLES (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $465,932 total reported compensation
  • GARRY ANDERSON (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $359,350 total reported compensation
  • CHAD SNEED (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $344,736 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Directs donations for use by lutheran hillside village, inc., allowing the entity to assist and care for the elderly in their time of need.

What it reported doing in 2022

Lutheran hillside village foundation (the lhv foundation), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, was formed for fundraising purposes to help support the operations of lutheran hillside village.the lhv foundation earnings are to be used exclusively to support lutheran hillside village. The lhv foundation contains donor restricted and board designated investments for benevolent care and clinical pastoral education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $466K · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.