Seabury Resources for Aging
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 530204693
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2022895690
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,868,647
- Expenses
- $6,449,650
- Assets
- $10,481,604
- Liabilities
- $649,824
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dawn Quattlebaum (CEO)
- Craig McCullough (President)
- Marcus Braxton (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dawn Quattlebaum (CEO): $220,498 total reported compensation
- Belinda Davis (Man. Dir of Fin.): $158,347 total reported compensation
- Greg Rockwell (Man Dir Advance): $133,539 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Seabury Resources for Aging's mission is to provide personalized, affordable services and housing options to help older adults in the greater Washington, D.C. area live with independence and dignity.
What it reported doing in 2024
Maintained and provided facilities, services, and a broad range of social service programs for older adults throughout the Washington, D.C. area including affordable housing, transportation, home delivery meals, care management, community outreach, and support to congregations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 66% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 78.2%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 78.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $528K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.