Senior Services Consortium of Ramsey County
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311689516
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- St Paul, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6512664107
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Meals on Wheels
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $301,274
- Expenses
- $320,461
- Assets
- $316,615
- Liabilities
- $40,999
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DENISE WICKISER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DENISE WICKISER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $87,857 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to sustain a strong collaborative of community-based organizations that are dedicated to helping people maintain their independence and improve the quality of their lives through good nutrition.
What it reported doing in 2024
Since 1975, the senior services consortium of ramsey county (meals on wheels of ramsey county) has led a meals on wheels collaboration focused on cost-effective solutions to provide nutritious home-delivered meals and wellness checks to older adults living at home throughout ramsey county. Ramsey county is the second-most populous county in Minnesota while being the smallest geographically, therefore being the most densely populated county in the state. Ramsey county is also the most racially and ethnically diverse county in the state. Ramsey county is experiencing exponential growth in the population of older adults, which is expected to double in the next 15-20 years. With the rapid expansion in the number of older adults and considering the average life expectancy of 79.9 years in ramsey county, this is leaving more and more older adult residents at risk of hunger and isolation. By formally engaging a network of well-respected east metro community-based organizations and school districts, uniform and accessible service is available throughout the county and beyond. The consortium network ensures an effective, economical, and streamlined meal delivery system that is authentically local and responsive to neighborhood/community needs. The consortium maintains the coordinated system of meals on wheels of ramsey county in collaboration with member agencies, ramsey county, community partners, and funders by coordinating service contracts, grants, shared operations, and customization of services. Collaborating as a consortium helps to stretch limited resources by leveraging the network of members. Our model utilizes national and regional best practices and community engagement in each member's geographical areas. The consortium works to strengthen operations by providing billing services, program development, vendor management including caterer and metro meals on wheels, surveys/evaluation, ramsey county senior resource guide, outreach support, and strategic planning. In 2024, consortium members delivered over 203,000 nutritious mid-day home-delivered meals to people who are older adults, living with a disability, or who were unable to prepare their own meals. Meals are made from scratch in a local twin cities meals on wheels kitchen. Meals are heart-healthy and diabetic-friendly. Meal options include gluten free, dairy free, vegetarian, renal, and pureed. Cultural menus include kosher, halal, east african, hmong, asian-inspired, and latino-inspired. Research shows the daily check included in the meals on wheels delivery model lessens feelings of isolation and lonliness and reduces the rate of falls. Meals on wheels can serve a ramsey county senior for an entire year for roughly the same cost as one day in the hospital or 10 days in a nursing home. 68% of meals on wheels recipients in ramsey county live alone and most are low income. Volunteers are the backbone of the meals on wheels of ramsey county program. About 1,200 volunteers helped deliver meals in ramsey county in 2024. Many people volunteer on their own while others participate through organizations where they are employed or are members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -6.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $254K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.