Porter Hills Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383243846
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Phone
6169494975
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,057,025
Expenses
$1,331,239
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE FETYKO (DIRECTOR/ UMRC CEO)
  • WENDY BRIGHTMAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVE FETYKO (DIRECTOR/ UMRC CEO): $513,703 total reported compensation
  • KIM HOPPE (TREASURER/ UMRC CFO): $311,021 total reported compensation
  • WENDY BRIGHTMAN (PRESIDENT): $308,412 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Raise, invest, and monitor the funds that support porter hills retirement communities and services.

What it reported doing in 2020

The porter hills foundation was officially established in 1995 as the fundraising arm for porter hills presbyterian village, inc., with headquarters in grand rapids, Michigan. This year, the porter hills foundation celebrates its 27th anniversary as a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Its mission is to raise, invest, and monitor the funds that support porter hills in providing a continuum of high-quality communities and services. As an organization founded on faith, benevolent care is the cornerstone of the porter hills foundation, supporting care for qualified porter hills residents who have exhausted their resources. The population of older adults over age 65 is expected to double in the next decade, and triple for those 85 and older. Michigan is currently the fastest aging state in the u.s. Porter hills foundation, serving side-by-side with porter hills, is dedicated to elevating philanthropy that embraces the care needs and wishes of this dramatically growing sector. The porter hills foundation remains steadfast in its commitment to support the mission of porter hills as trusted experts serving seniors with grace. With a focus on the health and well-being of older adults, and education and retention of our outstanding staff team members, the porter hills foundation has determined these four priority fundraising initiatives:1. Benevolent care, ensuring that eligible residents who outlive their financial resources always have a loving home at porter hills.2. Employee support services, offering staff scholarships and emergency aid to support our outstanding porter hills team members in reaching their career and educational goals, or to lend a helping hand to those who experience an emergency causing financial hardship. Priority for scholarships is given to our direct care team members and those with financial need. 3. Capital improvements, transforming existing buildings and constructing new ones that provide the utmost in personal comfort and amenities for Michigan's growing population of older adults. 4. Life enrichment for older adults, helping the older adults we serve at porter hills find their purpose, follow their passions, and live life to the fullest.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.9%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 38.3%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st 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: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 82.4%; rating input score 82; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.9% of revenue deployed · 38.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $509K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $514K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.