Mon-vale Non Acute Care Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251792434
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Monongahela, PA, USA
Phone
7242581106
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,195,264
Expenses
$3,478,956
Assets
$2,950,369
Liabilities
$204,125

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOUIS J PANZA JR (PRESIDENT)
  • DONNA L RAMUSIVICH (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL F SIMMONS (SECRETARY/TREASURER (UNTIL 11/30/21)): $517,011 total reported compensation
  • LOUIS J PANZA JR (PRESIDENT): $473,339 total reported compensation
  • DONNA L RAMUSIVICH (VICE PRESIDENT): $270,808 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of mon-vale non acute care services, inc. Is to provide facilities to care for the elderly population of the mid-monongahela valley area.

What it reported doing in 2021

The mission of mon-vale non acute care services, inc. Is to provide superior facilities to care for the elderly population of the mid-monongahela valley area. This is accomplished by providing facilities that meet and exceed the needs of our residents. These include housing, health care, and financial security.housing needs are satisfied with residential facilities specifically designed to meet the physical, emotional, recreational, religious, and other similar needs of aged persons.health care needs are satisfied by maintaining the physical and mental well-being of the residents. This is done with direct and indirect health care through arrangements with other organizations, facilities, or health personnel.financial security is satisfied by committing to a policy of maintaining in residence any individual who becomes unable to pay their regular charges and by operating our services at the lowest reasonable cost while still maintaining the highest quality of care for our residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 7th 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: -8.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $517K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.