St Ann's Greens of Leroy Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 852951380
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5856976000
- Rating
- 38
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $104,595
- Expenses
- $19,310
- Assets
- $1,293,949
- Liabilities
- $3,075,000
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
27 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL E MCRAE (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL E MCRAE (PRESIDENT/CEO): $560,826 total reported compensation
- ROBERT S BOURG (SVP ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT): $289,660 total reported compensation
- KEVIN C BROWN (SVP/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $259,660 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 promote the highest levels of independence, physical, and spiritual well-being of older adults in the catholic tradition of excellence in care and services in the greater rochester area. St. Ann's community (otherwise known as st. Ann's of greater rochester) delivers these services through affiliated organizations: st. Ann's home for the aged, st. Ann's nursing home company, inc., st. Ann's foundation, inc., st. Ann's senior housing, inc., chapel oaks, inc., and st. Ann's greens of leroy, inc.
What it reported doing in 2024
St. Ann's community at the greens (leroy) was an independent living facility until december 2023, when management sold the housing units to another operator. The entity continues to exist while management is evaluating its future direction.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- 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
REVIEW - 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 82.6%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 81.5%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 67.01; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.38; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 764.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -27.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -25.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $561K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 7 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.