The Alden Court Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201897225
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Fairhaven, MA, USA
Phone
5089918600
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$961,789
Expenses
$969,825
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • A JASON GEISINGER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • A JASON GEISINGER (PRESIDENT): $212,488 total reported compensation
  • NANCY GEISINGER (SECRETARY): $56,419 total reported compensation
  • SAVINO MAGALETTA (MEMBER): $28,919 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 alden court, inc. Is a Massachusetts not-for-profit charitable corporation that owns and leases a 142-bed nursing facility known as the alden court skilled nursing and rehabilitation center to metro health foundation of Massachusetts, inc., a Georgia not-for-profit charitable corporation.

What it reported doing in 2016

Non-profit lease - owns and leases a 142-bed nursing facility known as the alden court skilled nursing and rehabilitation center to metro health foundation Massachusetts, inc., a Georgia not-for-profit charitable corporation.the organization was sold on september 30, 2016 to two third-party organizations. Program service operations were no longer operational as of october 1, 2016.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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. 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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -0.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.4% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $946K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $103K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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 43/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.