Concordia Life Plan Community

Legal name: Lutheran Senior Citizens Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731032864
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, US
Phone
(405) 331-6113
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,857,795
Expenses
$12,915,087
Assets
$21,495,711
Liabilities
$43,246,824

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SEAMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN A LIPPERT (PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL EISCHEN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL EISCHEN (CEO): $238,028 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN GILLEY (OPERATIONS MANAGER): $160,887 total reported compensation
  • Rhonda Nowlin (Director of Nursing): $130,268 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Concordia life plan community is a not-for-profit lutheran organization committed to upholding christian values while meeting the current and continuing needs of seniors of all beliefs in a safe, secure, and caring environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

A continuing care retirement community (life plan community) featuring independent living, assisted living, memory care and skilled nursing

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 related-organization disclosures are missing and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th 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: 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: 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: 6.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.66; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.01; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $238K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 35 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.