Ryder Home for the Elderly Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
660706107
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Humacao, PR, USA
Phone
7878520768
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,200,977
Expenses
$870,154
Assets
$2,052,286
Liabilities
$437,861

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARMEN SARA GARCIA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JUAN M MENDEZ (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ELBA SANTANA (DIRECTOR)
  • MIRIAM ALICEA (DIRECTOR)
  • CARMEN S ALBINO (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Ryder home elderly, inc was organized as a non profit organization. The project is a 96 unit apartment facility for elderly persons located in humacao, puerto rico. It is operated under section 811 of the national housing act of 1990 and regulated by the us department of housing and urban development (hud) with respect to rental charges and operating methods. During the year the average percentage of occupancy was 98%.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Project is a 96 unit apartment facility for elderly persons located in Humacao, Puerto Rico. It is operated under Section 811 of the National Housing Act 1990 and regulated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with respect to rental charges and operating methods. During the year the average percentage of occupancy was 96%.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.36; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $697K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.