The Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743261256
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Phone
4014518158
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$298,296
Expenses
$173,965
Assets
$340,148
Liabilities
$343

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carol Ann Costa (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Carol Ann Costa (Executive Director): $32,308 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Senior Agenda Coalition is an independent and diverse coalition of agency and individual members. Our mission is to mobilize people to implement an agenda that improves the quality of life of older Rhode Islanders and adults with disabilities. We accomplish this through community organizing, public education, advocacy, and legislative action.

What it reported doing in 2024

Worked to improve economic security of persons on Medicare by advocating for increasing income eligibility for the Medicare Savings Program (aka Medicare Premium Payment program)Supported increasing home and human services provider reimbursement under the Medicaid program to assist with workforce recruitment and retention and avoid waiting list for services especially for home care. This would also help in "rebalancing" long term care. Advocated to increase support for community programs for older adults, i.e. "senior centers and other local programs.Supported Legislation to assist working caregivers by expanding the state Temporary Caregiver Insurance law

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.5%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 41.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.5% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.