Seasons Hospice Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271825679
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Park Ridge, IL, USA
Phone
8472500799
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospices

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,175,304
Expenses
$1,090,917
Assets
$5,535,721
Liabilities
$2,558,607

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GISELE CROWE (PRESIDENT)
  • GABRIELLE TWO (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GISELE CROWE (PRESIDENT): $201,710 total reported compensation
  • GABRIELLE TWO (VICE PRESIDENT): $159,128 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support end of life care for individuals with limited means, as well as to sponsor community educational programs regarding end of life care and the role of hospice in this process.

What it reported doing in 2025

General - the leaving a legacy program is designed for the patient and care giver to create projects that are tangible items left to loved ones after the patient passes away. While a legacy project can be anything a family or patient dreams up, the most popular ones include thumb print necklaces, hand casts and recordings of a patient's heartbeat set to a favorite song. In addition, seasons hospice foundation provides patients with wishes. The wish program can include trips or tickets to a favorite team's game but in reality over 80% of patient requests have been for needs that are essential to a comfortable end of life. The foundation may pay rent for a month while family members take fmla to care for a loved one or sometimes just an electricity bill or pest control services which are needed to make sure the hospice team is safe and comfortable in the patient's home. The 291 purchases are bulk purchases - 803 individuals received legacy projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th 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; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.07; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 58.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $642K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.