PACE of the Triad
Legal name: Pace of Guilford and Rockingham Counties Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271560334
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Winston-Salem, NC, US
- Phone
- (336) 550-4040
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $35,120,994
- Expenses
- $25,968,774
- Assets
- $31,929,599
- Liabilities
- $4,889,252
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- URSULA ROBINSON (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TIFFANY REED (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $303,289 total reported compensation
- URSULA ROBINSON (PRESIDENT/CEO): $258,859 total reported compensation
- BRITTANY MILLER (NURSE PRACTIONER PROVIDER): $165,632 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to deliver all-inclusive services to enhance hope, life and autonomy.
What it reported doing in 2024
The ability to coordinate the care of each participant enrolled in pace is key to the model. Pace coordinates and provides all needed preventive, primary, acute and long-term care services to enable participants to continue living in the community. The components of the pace program respond to the unique needs of each participant enrolled in the program. The interdisciplinary teams are comprised of physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, therapists, van drivers, aides and others who meet regularly to exchange information and solve problems as the conditions and needs of the pace participants change. Through interdisciplinary teams, the viewpoints of different disciplines are brought together, and the information gained(continued on schedule o)through interaction with the pace participants over time and in different settings is shared. This approach empowers those involved and allows more information to be available at the critical points when decisions are being made. Capitated payment arrangements: pace receives a monthly capitated payment (i.e., a lump sum from medicare combined with medicaid or a participant's private pay resources that is used to pay for a variety of comprehensive services) and is responsible for all the care needs approved by the team. As such, the financial interests of the pace program and the care needs of the persons they serve are aligned in a unique way. Regardless of whether needed services would be reimbursed under traditional fee-for-service medicare and medicaid, pace provides a comprehensive set of preventative, primary, acute and long-term care services that are tailored specifically to the needs of individual pace participants to help them avoid hospital or nursing home placement to the greatest extent possible. The program is designed to monitor participants closely for even subtle changes in needs, which if left unattended could lead to costly acute care episodes. Pace flexibility can produce more cost-effective solutions and a higher quality of life than prescribing costly medications and continually providing hospital services. Pace centers: pace participants attend the pace center if desired. The center includes a health clinic with an on-site physician and nurse practitioner, physical and occupational therapy facilities, and at least one common room for social and recreational activities. Transportation: another covered benefit for pace participants, is critical to the implementation of the care plan. It is a keyway that pace supports families who are providing care for their loved ones. Transportation is provided not only to and from the day center but also to other appointments. Providing transportation also places a driver, who has been trained to observe cues, in the home of the pace participant. Drivers then can report these cues that may signal a change in health status or other changes that should be monitored.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.2%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 94.2%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 68.2% of revenue deployed · 94.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $303K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.