Trezevant Manor Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581430713
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9013254000
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nursing, Convalescent Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,325,042
Expenses
$674,611
Assets
$17,867,406
Liabilities
$2,762,298

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT PHILLIPS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENT PHILLIPS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $404,734 total reported compensation
  • DONALD SELHEIMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $399,986 total reported compensation
  • PAULA JACOBSON (DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION): $101,783 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 enhance the quality of life of current and future residents while providing support to staff seeking educational advancement

What it reported doing in 2024

The trezevant foundation was created in 1981 and chartered as a separate not-for-profit entity to support trezevant's commitment to each lifecare resident. The trezevant foundation provides support to residents, staff, families and area non-profits in memphis, Tennessee. Residents who can no longer meet the financial requirements are supported by foundation donations.the trezevant foundation is used to enhance the function and activities of the trezevant community that include both independent and assisted living facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% 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: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.4%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • 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; 72nd 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 71%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.49; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.4% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $473K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $405K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.