Springpoint Senior Living Inc- Parent
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311480524
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Wall, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 7324303650
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $21,381,564
- Expenses
- $19,266,582
- Assets
- $82,941,234
- Liabilities
- $42,769,708
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANTHONY ARGONDIZZA (TRUSTEE; EX-OFFICIO-PRESIDENT & CEO)
- SUSAN LIPPY (LPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- ANNE HAY (LPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MICHAEL GENTILE (LPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- RICHARD WHITEMAN (LPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MARY CANNON (LPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ANTHONY ARGONDIZZA (TRUSTEE; EX-OFFICIO-PRESIDENT & CEO): $1,685,629 total reported compensation
- GARRETT I MIDGETT (SENIOR VP/CFO, TREASURER): $596,717 total reported compensation
- MAUREEN E CAFFERTY ESQ (SR. VP/GENERAL COUNSEL, SECRETARY): $582,715 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 - to inspire our family with endless opportunities.our vision - to be the premier provider, offering exceptional services and innovative programs that empower those we serve and those who serve them to experience the best that life has to offer.
What it reported doing in 2024
Expenses incurred in providing administrative, financial and support services to all affiliates. Please refer to schedule o for the organization's community benefit statement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 46
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.9%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 9.9%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.3; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.9% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 37 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.