Maple Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232810902
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Warminster, PA, USA
Phone
2153540565
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,591,861
Expenses
$10,229,515
Assets
$31,569,629
Liabilities
$42,619,665

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN FROST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF PETTY (CHAIR): $1,004,112 total reported compensation
  • SHELLEY BALLET (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $417,718 total reported compensation
  • DAN FROST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $269,168 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To make a compelling difference in the lives of our residents through providing excellence and innovation in aging services.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization operates a non-profit retirement community which includes independent living and personal care consisting of 38 cottages, 150 apartments, and 33 personal care units. The community provides aging services to promote general health, welfare and security for the senior residents, and to plan and develop new programs and services to meet the evolving social, health and personal needs of residents. Occupancy for the year was 97.84% for independent living and 79.90% for personal care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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: -6.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.35; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.2% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $431K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.