Mt Carmel House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161259069
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hilton, NY, USA
Phone
5853664949
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,410,991
Expenses
$778,563
Assets
$11,920,165
Liabilities
$12,403

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rev Jack Healy OCarm (President/Treasurer)
  • Timothy Woodlock MD (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lauren Garland (Director (through 6/24)): $39,344 total reported compensation
  • Rachel Sargent (Director (beg. 6/24 through 3/25)): $39,302 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mt. Carmel House provides complete comfort care and spiritual solace including lodging, food, and other services to the terminally ill, free of charge.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mt. Carmel House provides complete physical care for terminally ill residents. The house never closes except for repairs, health emergencies like the recent pandemic, or unforeseen contingencies. Services are provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Mt. Carmel House provides significant financial benefit to the Rochester community. The program is supported through contributions and investment income.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $76.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 49th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 44.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.31; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $588K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $39K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.