Meadowlark Hills Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481212997
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manhattan, KS, USA
Phone
7855374610
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,036,668
Expenses
$751,428
Assets
$21,324,431
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LONNIE BAKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LONNIE BAKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $400,964 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS NELSON (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $230,932 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA FITZGERALD (DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR): $112,606 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The meadowlark hills foundation is organized for the inviolable charitable purposes of: soliciting, receiving, acquiring, holding, maintaining, investing and reinvesting money and/or other property, and from time to time disbursing the same and/or income therefrom to, or for the benefit of, manhattan retirement foundation, inc. To be used exclusively for the charitable purposes of manhattan retirement foundation, inc. Also, it assists in the financing of the facility in furtherance of the organization's charitable purposes and missions.

What it reported doing in 2024

A not-for-profit charitable organization, the foundation is dedicated to the continued growth and excellence of meadowlark, by providing opportunities for private giving to further the person-centered mission of meadowlark hills retirement community. Through the generosity of our residents, their loved ones, and members of the local community, meadowlark creates the irreplaceable feeling of home. These supporters, like us, feel that this supportive, welcoming environment is one of the utmost priorities for our community and our future.the foundation's work allows the meadowlark hills campus to keep up with changing technologies and modern amenities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th 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: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 40th 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: 63.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 28.38; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.8% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $525K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $401K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.