Westminster Village Terre Haute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351494162
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Terre Haute, IN, USA
Phone
8122424600
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,873,005
Expenses
$20,749,731
Assets
$17,656,448
Liabilities
$42,859,739

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN CALLAHAN (PRESIDENT)
  • COLLEEN MATTHEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERRA HOLLER (ADMINISTRATOR): $176,250 total reported compensation
  • COLLEEN MATTHEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,826 total reported compensation
  • JOHANNA COLLINS (DIRECTOR OF NURSING): $136,613 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To make every resident feel genuinely at home, lovingly cared for and joyfully connected through a vibrant active community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Assisted-living maintains 38 assisted-living apartments, includes weekly housekeeping, three daily meals, maintenance as needed, and all utilities, allows access to the organization's activities and amenities, personalized assistance.as for personalized assistance residents can count on help with medication management, cuing and reminders as well as activities of daily living including dressing, grooming and bathing. Residents can take part in various social opportunities and outings, too.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.43; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.7M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.