Westminster Canterbury Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521189655
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8042646000
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,013,918
Expenses
$5,727,830
Assets
$98,713,369
Liabilities
$820,326

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

Leadership & pay

42 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BURNS (CEO)
  • W RUSSELL GARDNER (CFO & VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT MANN (VICE PRESIDENT IT)
  • DAN STACKHOUSE (VICE PRESIDENT RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT)
  • STACEY NANNERY (VICE PRESIDENT SALES AND MARKETING)
  • JASON COLLINS (VICE PRESIDENT FACILITIES)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN BURNS (CEO): $702,489 total reported compensation
  • W RUSSELL GARDNER (CFO & VICE PRESIDENT): $523,930 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LOOP (VICE PRESIDENT HEALTH AND WELLNESS): $245,337 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Westminster canterbury foundation raises funds for financial aid to lower income older adults to enter and live at westminster canterbury(continued on schedule o) richmond and for other programs in this community serving seniors from independent living through nursing care: health services; memory support therapies; training of clinical and non-clinical staff and community interns; pastoral care; the arts; scholarships for children in our on-site child development center; and specialized staffing and equipment to include children with special needs in our center.

What it reported doing in 2024

Westminster canterbury foundation is committed to compassion and excellence for all residents of westminster canterbury richmond regardless of health, cognitive or financial status. The foundation nurtures the spirit of generosity to ensure the best life possible for our senior residents, provides support for our workforce, and cultivates leadership and innovation in senior services. Our fellowship program provides life care guaranteed access to long-term independent, assisted or healthcare as well as housing, meals, medical care, and all the vital living of westminster canterbury richmond for more than one hundred seniors-in-need who reside on our campus. Our fellowship outreach program provides collaborative services and support to seniors-in-need in the greater community. (continued on schedule o). Westminster canterbury foundation also provides funding for memory support therapies, pastoral care internships and programming, wellness and fitness programs, cultural arts programs and healthcare excellence enrichment. Fellowship support - westminster canterbury foundation nurtures generosity for the needs of westminster canterbury richmond in continued response to our joint faith-based mission of providing financial support for seniors-in-need through our fellowship program. Approximately 90 people receive this need-based benevolent care per year, through a combination of fundraising for the annual fellowship fund and dedicated endowments held by both westminster canterbury foundation and the westminster canterbury corporation. Fellowship program support is offered to new residents with demonstrated financial need, assisting with entry fee support and to residents who have outlived their resources. Our fellowship program assures that no resident will ever be asked to leave due to an inability to pay through no fault of their own.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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; 66th 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: 77.1%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.23; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $702K · 42 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.