Porter County Aging & Community Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 351296781
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Valparaiso, IN, USA
- Phone
- 2194649736
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,228,895
- Expenses
- $1,114,511
- Assets
- $1,312,719
- Liabilities
- $59,029
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRISTOPHER RIPLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DON ENSIGN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JUDY A PERACKI (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $69,608 total reported compensation
- JASON C KEGEBEIN (EXECUTIVE DIREC): $59,531 total reported compensation
- BRUCE LINDNER (EXECUTIVE DIREC): $26,306 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Pcacs extends a helping hand to seniors, the disabled, and the low income by providing compassionate services to improve their quality of life while maintaining their dignity and independence.
What it reported doing in 2024
For over 50 years, porter county aging and community services has been providing a relatively low cost demand response transportation service for the citizens of porter county. These services are open to the public and door to door, meaning clients can be picked up at their homes, dropped off at their desired destination and returned to their homes. We serve senior citizens and people with disabilities by providing door-to-door transportation. This enables them to have a more productive, independent, healthier and happier lifestyle. They rely on us to get them to life-sustaining dialysis treatments, doctor appointments, trips to the bank, grocery store, work, etc. Without our vans, many local seniors would go without necessary medical treatment. Others would go without groceries and many people with disabilities would not be able to sustain employment. Our transportation services are often the direct link between this population and the ability to be healthy, independent and productive citizens.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 9.3%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $960K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 17 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.