Rose Villa Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 936023450
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Portland, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5036543075
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $745,459
- Expenses
- $701,215
- Assets
- $8,222,009
- Liabilities
- $475,184
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALEXIS ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF JULY 2024))
- CATHY SCHAR (PRESIDENT)
- LOUISE WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DON LEHMAN (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- GLEN LEWIS DIRECTOR AS OF (MAR '24) & TREASURER (AS OF SEP '24)): $231,805 total reported compensation
- ANGELA HANSEN (TREASURER (THROUGH AUGUST 2024)): $183,857 total reported compensation
- ALEXIS ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF JULY 2024)): $41,178 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The rose villa foundation supports independence, advances well-being, empowers senior residents, and inspires our community to build a better future for all generations.
What it reported doing in 2024
Resident assistance: provided safety-net support to meet the needs of eight longtime residents of rose villa, inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit single-site life plan community. Primarily through grants to rose villa, inc., rose villa foundation continued its founding purpose, a neighbor-to-neighbor promise that longtime residents facing unexpected financial hardship - through no fault of their own - may remain in the community they call home.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.8%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.9%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.73; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.8% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $553K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $137K reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.