Presbyterian Homes & Services

Legal name: Presbyterian Homes Housing & Assisted Living Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411463801
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Roseville, MN, USA
Phone
651-631-6100
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$107,493,250
Expenses
$92,047,706
Assets
$525,808,397
Liabilities
$429,270,251

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL LINDH (PRESIDENT & CEO (THRU 02/25))
  • JONATHAN FLETCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL LINDH (PRESIDENT & CEO (THRU 02/25)): $1,023,333 total reported compensation
  • MARK MEYER (CFO): $528,586 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN FLETCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $428,022 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To honor God by enriching the lives and touching the hearts of older adults. Serving older adults is our passion. Presbyterian Homes & Services made the decision to incorporate an in-house project development team that would serve both PHS and other organizations serving older adults. Senior Housing Partners (SHP) was formed to guide Presbyterian Homes in the pursuit of expanding our mission to more older adults in years to come. Shepherd of The Lake Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church joined with PHS to build and open McKenna Crossing in Prior Lake, Minn. Both the church building and McKenna Crossing are part of the Shepherd’s Path campus. The congregation now supplies chaplaincy services to McKenna Crossing and many of the residents living there maintain ties to t.

What it reported doing in 2024

Presbyterian homes housing & assisted living, inc. Operates several senior housing facilities in Minnesota and Iowa. Campus in spring park, mn consists of 60 bed skilled nursing facility, 52 traditional assisted living apartments, 18 memory care specific assisted living apartments, 166 independent senior living apartments, and 125 multifamily employee housing apartments. Campus in little canada, mn consisting of 93 independent senior living apartments. A campus in plymouth, mn consists of 24 memory care specific assisted living apartments, 28 traditional assisted living apartments, and 68 independent senior living apartments. A campus in burnsville, mn with 40 bed assisted living facility and 20 memory care specific assisted living apartments. A campus in st. Paul, mn consisting of 16 memory care specific assisted living apartments, 61 traditional assisted living apartments, and 73 independent senior living apartments. A campus in shorewood, mn consisting of 25 memory care specific assisted living apartments, 26 traditional assisted living apartments, and 54 independent senior living apartments. Lastly, a campus in white bear lake, mn consisting of 30 memory care specific apartments and 82 mixed traditional assisted living and independent senior living apartments. During the year ended september 30, 2025. Phhal sold one of their campuses in st. Paul, mn consisting of 193 independent senior living apartments.in addition to operating senior housing facilities, phhal also provides administrative support for the affiliated organizations of presbyterian homes and services, as well as similar nonprofit organizations. Senior housing partners provides a comprehensive package of strategic planning, project development, financing, construction, and marketing for the senior housing industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 14.4%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.71; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.3M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 74 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.