WRC Pennsylvania Memorial Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
250718600
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Brookville, PA, USA
Phone
8147888231
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nursing, Convalescent Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,109,552
Expenses
$13,128,699
Assets
$18,497,148
Liabilities
$20,805,660

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Norman (Director/COO): $715,216 total reported compensation
  • Gregory Bauer (Board Member/ CBDO): $389,639 total reported compensation
  • Julianne Peer (Board Member): $330,632 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Wrc Pennsylvania memorial home's mission is to provide choices for generations. Built on a not-for-profit foundation of caring, the organization offers residential and personal care, home and community-based services, skilled and rehabilitative health care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Care and services for the elderly, consisting of: skilled nursing and therapy at mckinley health center, a 90-bed nursing facility; personal care at laurelbrooke, a 50-bed facility; edgewood heights a 40-bed facility; ridgmont, a 40-bed facility; highland oaks at water run, a 60-bed facility; independent living at the laurels, 19-unit carriage home community and the villas at water run, a 9-unit residential community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -8.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.12; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.4% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $715K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 30 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.