St George Wellness Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364383845
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Palos Heights, IL, USA
Phone
7082260555
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,684,494
Expenses
$3,538,019
Assets
$23,985
Liabilities
$874,381

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Terrence Moisan (Director): $846,912 total reported compensation
  • Timothy J Brosnan (Chairman): $395,215 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Wellness Center, a sports fitness center, provides medically based health and education programs which contributes to the overall conditioning, rehabilitation, disease prevention and management of its membership.

What it reported doing in 2016

The primary purpose of St. George Wellness Center is to provide facilities and programs for medically based health and wellness activities including community education initiatives. This is achieved through services provided by the organization's health and fitness center, which is a 78,000 square foot facility offering medically based health, fitness and education programs that contribute to the overall condition, rehabilitation, and disease prevention and management for members. All members participate in a fitness assessment process by which individualized fitness programs are developed. The Wellness Center serves approximately 3,600 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.8%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 6th 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: -31.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 36.46; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.8% of revenue deployed · 48.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $847K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.