The Institute for the Ages Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273673940
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Sarasota, FL, USA
Phone
9413654243
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$701,382
Expenses
$732,168
Assets
$339,323
Liabilities
$106,545

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ESSELMAN THOMAS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ESSELMAN THOMAS (CEO): $231,838 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To activate ideas that prepare us for the opportunities and challenges associated with aging populations

What it reported doing in 2013

Our mission is to transform aging through the authentic voice of the older adults. Our primary focus is to help connect innovators to the dense base of older adults in sarasota county, including more than 130,000 individuals 65 and over, who are interested in contributing to solutions for positive aging. We do this through a community powered research network. The institute for the ages helps empower older adults to engage in groups to identify and drive innovative solutions for different aspects of aging. The institute holds public and private events, publishes a website and related content and materials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 21st 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: -4.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $524K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.