Swope Parkway Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431531202
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8165995680
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$144,366
Expenses
$239,626
Assets
$615,253
Liabilities
$275,014

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JERON RAVIN (PRESIDENT/CEO, SWOPE HEALTH SERVICES)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERON RAVIN (PRESIDENT/CEO, SWOPE HEALTH SERVICES): $643,978 total reported compensation
  • NAIMISH PATEL (FORMER CFO/FINANCIAL COSNSULTANT): $308,731 total reported compensation
  • ESSENCE MONTGOMERY (CFO, SWOPE HEALTH SERVICES): $115,613 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Swope parkway housing inc (sphi) is a Missouri not-for-profit corporation. Swope health services is the sole corporate member of sphi. Sphi was formed in 1989 to own and operate a 15-unit apartment complex in Kansas city, Missouri, known as rainbow residential care (the project), hud project number 084-hh004. The corporation provides housing to elderly and disabled persons, subject to regulation by the u.s. Department of housing and urban development (hud) as to rental charges and operating methods. Lower rental charges are recovered by the ownership through rent subsidies provided by the department of mental health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Swope parkway housing inc (sphi) is a Missouri not for profit corporation. Wholly owned by swope health services, housing was formed in 1989 to own and operate a 15-unit apartment complex in Kansas city, Missouri, known as rainbow residential care (the project), hud project number 084-hh004. The corporation provides housing to elderly and disabled persons, subject to regulation by the u.s. Department of housing and urban development (hud) as to rental charges and operating methods. Lower rental charges are recovered by the ownership through rent subsidies provided by the department of mental health.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -66%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $240K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $644K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.