Reedsburg Area Senior Life Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760775289
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reedsburg, WI, USA
Phone
6085246577
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,359,881
Expenses
$7,007,310
Assets
$7,633,464
Liabilities
$6,106,698

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN SHEAR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT VAN MEETEREN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PHIL PETERSON (CHAIRMAN): $250 total reported compensation
  • KATHY SCHWARTZ (DIRECTOR): $250 total reported compensation
  • JUDY BASS (TREASURER): $200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Reedsburg area senior life center, inc. Always there going beyond the expected to provide compassionate, quality and efficient healthcare.

What it reported doing in 2024

Consists of a long-term care unit, community based residential facility (cbrf) and an apartment style assisted living facility located on the reedsburg area medical center campus. Raslc is designed with a neighborhood concept, so all residential living wings extend from the main street and town square area. Ridgeview terrace, a long-term care unit living facility, offers large, private rooms in two different neighborhoods, as does ridgeview trails (cbrf). Between the two units there are 49 licensed beds. During the fiscal year ending 09/30/25, raslc provided care for 8,051 long-term care resident days and 7,794 cbrf resident days.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250 · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $4.6M reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.