St Nicholas Cedars Manor Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953457097
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
7472730880
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$519,948
Expenses
$288,507
Assets
$751,290
Liabilities
$43,202

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR RONALD W NICHOLS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK SIMON (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DR RONALD W NICHOLS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK SIMON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES SAMORE (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Accordance with the not-for-profit statutes of the state of California. The corporation was formed for the purpose of operating a 26 unit community known as st. Nicholas cedars (the "property") located in los angeles, California.the property receives rent subsidies through a housing assistance payments ("hap" ) contract with the u.s. Department of housing and urban development ("hud") . The contract is for a period of five years expiring november 30, 2026, and provides subsidies to eligible residents to enable such residents to live in safe, adequate housing facilities they could not otherwise afford. Provisions of the contract establish maximum annual assistance payments by hud to the property.

What it reported doing in 2023

To provide quality living for low income senior citizens under hud section 8 rental assistance - 26 units in los angeles, California.

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 98% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $200K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.