Presbyterian Senior Living
Legal name: PHI
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 231381404
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
- Location
- Dillsburg, PA, US
- Phone
- 717.502.8840
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Support N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,999,865
- Expenses
- $27,072,458
- Assets
- $76,656,672
- Liabilities
- $85,600,653
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAN DAVIS JR (BOARD PRESIDENT & CEO)
- STEPHEN PROCTOR (FORMER PRES. & CEO (TERM. 06/19))
Highest reported compensation
- DAN DAVIS JR (BOARD PRESIDENT & CEO): $584,629 total reported compensation
- DYAN MCALISTER (BD TREAS., SR VICE PRES/CFO/CSO): $442,176 total reported compensation
- KATE HERSHEY (SVP OF OPERATIONS/COO): $332,596 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
PSL is a mission-driven organization and trusted leader in aging services that inspires individuals to thrive.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization considers its primary program to be general and administrative in nature. Phi d.b.a. Presbyterian senior living provides management support services for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and low income housing facilities. These management services include fundraising for the subsidiaries.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% 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
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 17
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 18.7%; rating input score 19
- Program expense ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 20
- Fundraising efficiency: $0.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.83; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.12; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 18.7% of revenue deployed · 19.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $585K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 69 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.