Vital Aging of Williamsburg County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582276534
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kingstree, SC, USA
Phone
8433545496
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$936,259
Expenses
$960,824
Assets
$1,720,254
Liabilities
$47,689

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Robert Welch (Executive Dir.): $59,937 total reported compensation
  • Judy McCrea (Deputy Director): $51,766 total reported compensation
  • Kerri Grainger (Finance Manager): $46,257 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 provide elderly services to the senior citizens of Williamburg County in South Carolina. Vital Aging promotes the physicial, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of Williamsburg County's senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Homemaker: Homemaker services are available to provide respite services and light housekeeping. This allows the seniors to have someone come into their home and assist them with meal preparation, washing dishes, laundry, making the bed, changing bed linens and light sweeping. A Homemaker service worker may be in the home up to 6 hours per month. These services were provided to a total of 52 clients throughout the fiscal year providing more than 2,787 total hours.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $666K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 18 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $417K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.