Sheltering Arms Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541615598
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Mechanicsville, VA, USA
- Phone
- 8047641000
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,240,139
- Expenses
- $8,912,877
- Assets
- $143,241,434
- Liabilities
- $51,231,880
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DIANNE V JEWELL (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES S LITSINGER (CFO & TREASURER): $455,181 total reported compensation
- DIANNE V JEWELL (PRESIDENT & CEO): $409,004 total reported compensation
- HELEN WEAVER (SECRETARY): $94,684 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To support the activities of affiliated entities including sheltering arms institute, sheltering arms hospital, sheltering arms foundation, and sheltering arms hospital south, including a focus on long-range(continued on schedule o)and financial planning in providing healthcare services and community-based programs to better meet the physical rehabilitation and healthcare and medical needs of people in the central Virginia geographical area.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sheltering arms corporation supported the provision of (1) inpatient physical rehabilitation services though a state of the science physical rehabilitation hospital operated through a joint venture between sheltering arms hospital and vcu health system and (2) outpatient physical rehabiliation services at seven outpatient locations.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.8%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 60
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.07; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.8% of revenue deployed · 59.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $455K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.