Regina Health Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341722394
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Richfield, OH, USA
- Phone
- 3306594161
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,951,877
- Expenses
- $15,081,053
- Assets
- $11,379,126
- Liabilities
- $2,180,622
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK YANTEK (DIRECTOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR))
- JOHN MULLIGAN (DIRECTOR (PRESIDENT))
- SHARON SCHNEIDER (DIRECTOR (VICE PRESIDENT))
Highest reported compensation
- MELISSA ROGERS (DIRECTOR): $415,705 total reported compensation
- MARK YANTEK (DIRECTOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)): $183,505 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Regina health center provides compassionate and holistic health care services for the members of religious communities, clergy, and other persons needing residential care or other supportive services.
What it reported doing in 2024
Regina health center (rhc) is a retirement community providing skilled nursing, assisted living and independent care with a priority for aged religious. In 2024 rhc provided 30,945 skilled living care days and 13,856 assisted living care days.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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
STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 58
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 95.7%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 28th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $416K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 17 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.