The Carolinas Foundation for Hospice and Home Care

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562127943
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9198483450
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$518,654
Expenses
$146,266
Assets
$351,976
Liabilities
$437

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY PENN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY R ROGERS (EX-OFFICIO): $329,276 total reported compensation
  • JUDY PENN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $196,948 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To build and support the retention of a quality workforce; to determine and promote the economic impact of hospice and home care services on local communities and the state; and to develop partnerships with appropriate health care (continued on schedule o) delivery systems to ensure hospice and home care are included as an essential component of the new emerging care models.

What it reported doing in 2024

Workforce development and training: in fy 2025, the foundation received $345,000 from three different funding sources to develop and pilot an industry-recognized standard curriculum and onboarding for personal care aides while working on the job. The project is underway with 12 pilot sites chosen, the curriculum developed, the agency trainers are trained, and the first set of aides having completed the training and receiving their certificates of completion. The pilot project will continue over the next two years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.3%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 71.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.41; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 51.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -53.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.3% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $139K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $329K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 27/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.