Rogue Valley Manor

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930453216
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Medford, OR, USA
Phone
8887246424
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,669,157
Expenses
$67,766,531
Assets
$251,824,347
Liabilities
$190,047,109

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVE KEATON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MELISSA PRESTON (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVE KEATON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $398,342 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA PRESTON (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $271,108 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE WHITAKER (DIRECTOR OF NURSING): $190,054 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Rogue valley manor is committed to enriching the lives of its residents in a live plan community environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rogue valley manor is a continuing care retirement community, dedicated to enhancing our residents' quality of life in a stimulating, secure environment. We provide high-quality services including housing, nutritious meals, nursing, housekeeping, maintenance, and other support to those we serve. Our levels of service include independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 36th 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: 5.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.72; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.75; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $398K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 51 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.