Marwood Nursing and Rehab

Legal name: Marwood Manor Nursing Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382683251
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Port Huron, MI, US
Phone
(810) 982-9500
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,381,538
Expenses
$26,397,054
Assets
$43,668,169
Liabilities
$1,667,574

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC CECAVA (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT & CEO M)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC CECAVA (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT & CEO M): $602,048 total reported compensation
  • KYLE VINING (ASSISTANT TREASURER): $241,459 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN OBERLY (ADMINISTRATOR): $225,532 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide our residents with quality care in a safe and comfortable environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided nursing home services. Currently, the nursing home has 240 beds. During fy 2025, 550 patients were admitted, of which 350 (or 63.64%) came from mclaren port huron hospital. Total patient days were 74,372. A total of 94.39% of patient days represents care to the indigent and elderly population of the community through the medicaid and medicare programs. 6,311 medicare hmo days 5,066 medicare days 56,981 medicaid days 1,838 medicaid hospice days

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 93% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 63.6% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $602K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 54 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.