Village Shalom

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481205323
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Overland Park, KS, United States
Phone
(913) 317-2600
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,543,670
Expenses
$3,136,794
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW LEWIS (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW LEWIS (PRESIDENT/CEO): $310,365 total reported compensation
  • KARIN MCCRARY (COO): $185,502 total reported compensation
  • NICOLE ANTHONY (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $137,538 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to nurture the physical, emotional, social and spiritual well-being of every individual whom we are privileged to serve, inspired by our heritage as a Jewish-sponsored senior living community. Our vision is to enable senior adults to flourish in a safe, caring, compassionate community. Life At Village Shalom At Village Shalom, we focus on the well-being of each person—body, mind, and spirit. Guided by the Jewish value of b’tzelem Elohim—the belief that every individual is created in the Divine image—we treat each resident with dignity and compassion. Our beautiful, secure campus is a place where seniors of all faiths and backgrounds can flourish—supported by caring staff and s.

What it reported doing in 2016

See schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 74th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -103.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -22.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $310K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.