The Glebe of Richmond Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541552745
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8042646000
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$270,460
Expenses
$233,260
Assets
$6,077,954
Liabilities
$1,988,325

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

Leadership & pay

38 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BURNS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • RUSSELL GARDNER (TREASURER, VICE PRESIDENT & CFO)
  • JOHN LOOP (VICE PRESIDENT HEALTH AND WELLNESS)
  • CHELSEA O NAYLOR (VICE PRESIDENT WORKFORCE SERVICES)
  • DANIEL STACKHOUSE (VICE PRESIDENT RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT)
  • ROBERT MANN (VICE PRESIDENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN BURNS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $702,489 total reported compensation
  • RUSSELL GARDNER (TREASURER, VICE PRESIDENT & CFO): $523,930 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LOOP (VICE PRESIDENT HEALTH AND WELLNESS): $245,337 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As a faith-based charitable organization, we will provide services, specific to need, in a compassionate, professional, holistic manner, through an inspiring environment and dynamic leadership for our residents, employees and others we serve.

What it reported doing in 2024

Independent living - operate and maintain an independent living facility for aging adults. The organization provides independent living services with on-site life care services, clinics for routine care, visiting specialists, as well as a pharmacy for its residents.

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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 34.9%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.8%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.06; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 146.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.1% of revenue deployed · 34.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $702K · 38 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.