Maple Lawn Health Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371060180
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Eureka, IL, USA
Phone
3094311946
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nursing, Convalescent Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,856,689
Expenses
$3,376,699
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES THOMASON (CEO)
  • JEREMY LAKOSH (CEO/CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES THOMASON (CEO): $112,482 total reported compensation
  • JEREMY LAKOSH (CEO/CFO): $77,192 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Maple lawn promotes and supports enriched quality living in a spirit of christ-like love.

What it reported doing in 2016

Nursing home convalescent care offering 112 total beds with 75 residents in 2016.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 75; 75th 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: 4.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.8% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.