Evolution of Public Relations from GlynnDevins on Vimeo.

In GlynnDevins’ view, there is seductive power in the world’s preeminent brands. A strong brand creates a kind of dreamscape that beckons you to enter, and then permeates your mind with its own mythology. 

There’s pleasure in knowing a brand’s origin and essence, and our responses become conditioned based on what we believe something to be. 

Do you doubt this?

When you pop the cork on an expensive-looking bottle, don’t you expect the wine inside to taste expensive? If you tell a 5-year-old that the pan of French fries you just pulled out of the oven came from McDonald’s, wouldn’t she enjoy them just a little bit more?

We make judgments based on what we believe. And that can depend on how things are branded. But can you brand a community the way you brand a can of fizzy syrup water? Yes and no. In addition to delivering on a brand promise, you need to craft and project a personality that appeals to people who may be about to make your community the source of their long-term care, and essentially the center of their lives. You’ll need a good reputation.

Brand. Reputation. Both?

Publishing in MIT Sloan Management Review, Richard Ettenson and Jonathan Knowles point out that brand is about relevancy and differentiation. Reputation is about legitimacy of an organization with respect to a wide range of stakeholders. How might their insight translate to senior living communities? 

Here’s what they say:

“Brand is customer-centric, focusing on what your organization promises its customers. Reputation is company-centric, focusing on the credibility and respect your organization has among a broad set of constituencies, including employees, investors, regulators, journalists and the community at large. Your brand helps communicate your (community’s) relevance and unique qualifications to meet the needs of those you serve. Your reputation is affected by a variety of factors, including the strength of your management, your financial performance, innovativeness, treatment of (residents), employees, workplace diversity, (health care competency) and handling of ethical issues.”

By now, there should be agreement that creating a distinct brand identity for a senior living community (logo, graphic standards, visual signature, positioning tagline, messaging platform, tone of voice in communications, etc.) adds value and maximizes your resources. Other advantages include:

  • Faster understanding of your community’s value.
  • A simple, more direct community message.
  • A clear, differentiated market position.
  • Consistent communication within your market

Your story. My story. The real story.

Even if you succeed in effectively branding your community in communications, your “community-centric” reputation is still a major consideration. If employees, health care professionals, business partners, or anyone in your local community questions your practices, these questions will swiftly become transparent to everyone. What to do?

Dedicate your efforts to building the reputation and shaping the narrative of your entire “customer” experience -- your community’s outward appeal, how its service is perceived, what residents and business associates say, your relationship with your employees, and so on. 

You have many tools at your disposal, including your media advertising, your web presence, internal communications, the information and resources you make available as a public service, the partnerships you cultivate and community outreach.

Keep in mind that reputation is built more on action than rhetoric. It appeals on an emotional level, and it engages person-to-person. We’re in a time when authenticity of experience counts for a lot -- maybe everything.

This article was written by Chris Fiorello, associate creative director at GlynnDevins, and is used here with permission.

 

Housing Need

America’s seniors face a severe housing crisis. The National Alliance to End Homelessness predicts the elderly homeless population will increase by 33 percent by 2020 and more than double by 2050. Three and a half million elders live below the poverty level. There are still 10 seniors on the waiting list for every affordable housing unit that becomes available, according to AARP. Affordable housing must be preserved, funded and expanded sufficiently to maintain quality residences within which seniors can live and age successfully in the place they call home.  

Aging in Place

Senior housing communities can serve as a platform for the coordination and delivery of health and long-term services and supports, which can help residents better manage their health and maintain independence. This can help prevent unnecessary use of emergency room and hospital services and delay or prevent transfers to higher levels of care.   

Affordable Housing Solutions

To meet our
nation’s senior housing needs, LeadingAge urges Congress to take the
following actions
:

FY2017
Appropriations: Preservation and Expansion for HUD Senior Housing Programs

  • Project Rental
    Assistance Contract Renewals
    - Fully fund the renewal of all Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs), at $427 million, to ensure that all 121,000 affordable homes in these properties are preserved.  
  • Access to Rental Assistance Demonstration for Project Rental Assistance Contracts - Several HUD rental housing programs are allowed to convert their subsidy streams to the Section 8 subsidy platform under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD). We support allowing Section 202 communities with Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs) (there are 2,900 of such communities) to access the RAD program. Under RAD, these properties could take on debt and use financing mechanisms to renovate and maintain communities in ways that are currently prohibited for PRACs. LeadingAge also supports $4 million to assist certain PRAC properties convert under RAD.
  • Funding to Produce New Affordable Housing - We support resources to increase the supply of affordable senior housing, through the Section 202 program or other means, in order to begin to meet the ever-growing need. Congress has not provided any resources since 2011 to expand the stock of housing affordable to very low income seniors. 
  • Renewal and Expansion of Service Coordinators - Funding this program at $91 million will keep today’s Service Coordinators in place and expand the service coordinator program to additional properties. 
  • Emergency Repairs - To meet immediate capital repair needs for Section 202 properties, which periodically confront unexpected and significant repair costs, we urge Congress to provide $5 million for emergency capital repair grants in Fiscal Year 2017. 
  • Sufficient
    funding for largest rental assistance programs
    - Funding is necessary to renew all Project-Based Rental Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (vouchers), and to adequately fund the public housing operating and capital funds. These are HUD’s three largest programs and serve millions of senior-headed households.

FY2017 Appropriations: USDA Rural Housing Service

Of the nation’s 533,000 USDA Rural Housing Service Section 515 multifamily units, more than half serve seniors and persons with disabilities. The average annual income of Section 515 households is less than $13,000. As Section 515 properties near the end of their mortgage contracts and use restrictions, nonprofits can be a key community partner to ensure these homes do not leave the affordable housing inventory.

LeadingAge supports language inserted into the Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Committee’s FY2017 appropriations bill that would authorize incentives to facilitate the transfer of USDA multifamily properties to nonprofit organizations and public housing authorities, including allowing such entities to earn a Return on Investment and an Asset Management Fee of up to $7,500 per property. These types of tools are critical to encouraging nonprofit participation in the preservation of these homes. 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

The Administration and Congress are contemplating several changes to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) to expand the program and, in part, to make it more responsive to the needs of lower income seniors and others.

LeadingAge supports:

  • increasing the annual amount of 9% credits available to states by 50%;
  • providing up to a 50% basis boost for properties targeting extremely-low income or homeless families and individuals, allowing these projects to achieve greater financial feasibility and eliminate the need for debt financing; and,
  • allowing “income averaging” at LIHTC properties. This proposal would require at least 40% of the units in the LIHTC property to be occupied by tenants with annual incomes that average no more than 60% of the area median income (AMI), but are never individually more than 80% AMI or be treated as less than 20% AMI.

Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have introduced two bills to improve the LIHTC program. Both bills are titled, The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2016. The first of these bills, S. 2962, would expand the annual amount of 9% credits by 50%, allow income averaging, and provide a minimum 4% Housing Credit rate for the acquisition of affordable housing and for multifamily Housing Bond-financed developments.

The second of these bills, S. 3237, introduced on July 14, includes all the provisions of S. 2962 plus many additional LIHTC changes. Of the additional changes proposed in S. 3237 is a 50% basis boost for apartments targeting extremely low income renters. This kind of basis boost would allow properties to serve lower income seniors in an affordable way. 

 Rural
Housing Preservation Act, H.R. 4908 and S. 2783
   

About 11,500 of the nation’s 14,500 properties with USDA Rural Development Section 515 loans will have their mortgages mature over next several years (with bulk of maturations occurring between 2019 and 2024). Section 515 owners need more options to protect the affordability of these communities.

More than 60% of Section 515 rural housing is occupied by elderly and/or disabled households, all very poor.

LeadingAge supports House and Senate bills, H.R. 4908 by Representative Ann McClane Kuster (D-NH) and S. 2783 by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), to help preserve Section 515 housing and protect residents.

The Rural Housing Preservation Act bills would:

  • Allow the decoupling of rental assistance from the term of a mortgage. USDA could thus renew rental assistance for a property regardless of the length of the mortgage that is outstanding or the type of payment.
  • Create parity in the process for transfers of 515 properties by clarifying that a non-profit preservation entity is allowed to take a tax distribution on “surplus cash” as for-profit managers are allowed to do under current policy.  
  • Allow the provision of USDA vouchers to residents in pre-paid and maturing properties. Currently only residents of pre-paid properties have access to vouchers. The bill would also give these vouchers to tenants in properties where the mortgages mature. 
  • Make permanent the Multi-Family Preservation and Revitalization Restructuring (MPR) Program. In recent years the MPR program has been authorized through language in appropriations bills to facilitate the acquisition and renovation of Section 515 properties. 

The bills also provide new flexibility for the value of USDA housing vouchers. Since 2004, the appropriations bills have included language fixing the value of the vouchers for pre-paid mortgages at the difference between the market rent and the tenant-paid rent in a given property. The new provision would allow these vouchers to operate similarly to HUD’s enhanced vouchers that provide assistance to beneficiaries in higher cost areas. 

Public Law 114-201: Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act  

On July 29, President Obama signed the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act into law (Public Law 114-201).

The new housing laws will expand housing providers’ ability to develop housing for extremely low income households and will streamline operational functions for senior housing providers. 

LeadingAge thinks that a few of the laws’ provisions will be particularly helpful to addressing the lack of housing affordable to low income seniors.

  • The law will modernize the ability of administrators to project-base housing choice vouchers by:
    • allowing the project-basing of up to 30% of the agency’s vouchers (rather than today’s 20% of the agency’s voucher budget) when the vouchers are used to house elderly and/or disabled households, veterans, and people who are homeless;
    • erasing the cap on the number of project-based vouchers used in a single senior housing community;
    • extending the term for which vouchers can be project-based from 15 to 20 years; and,
    • allowing housing agencies to permit site-specific waiting lists to be managed by community owners.
  • The law will streamline the calculation of income for purposes of rent setting. The bills would increase the threshold over which unreimbursed medical expenses for elderly and disabled households and disability-related expenses could be deducted form income from the current 3% to 10%. To protect the lowest income households from steep rent increases, the bills also increases the standard income deduction such households from the current $400 to $525 a month, and indexes this deduction to inflation. As a safeguard for any unintended consequences, the bills also require HUD to establish hardship policies for households unable to pay their rent because of these changes. 
  • The law will allow project sponsors / owners to rely on determinations of income conducted for other federal means-tested public assistance programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps).
  • The law attempts to target scarce HUD rental assistance to those who need it the most by imposing restrictions on assets for Section 8 and public housing tenants. Under the bills, a household would be ineligible for assistance if they had more than $100,000 in assets or they have a home they could otherwise live in.

 

 

The White House has announced that the 2015 White House Conference on Aging will take place on Monday, July 13

President Obama will lead the conference and will speak during the morning session. The program for the conference is as follows:

10:00am to 12:20pm
ET                         Welcome; Panels on Caregiving and Financial Security; President Obama’s
Remarks  

12:20pm to 1:20pm
ET                            Break for Lunch

1:20pm to 4:20pm
ET                              Afternoon Panel Discussions on Healthy Aging, Elder Justice and Technology

4:20pm to 4:30pm
ET                              Closing

    The White House will livestream the event to make it possible for elders and other stakeholders from around the country to participate in the conference.

    Participants may organize watch parties and use social media to forward questions to conference panelists.

    The White House encourages conference participation in other ways, especially by: 

     

    • Sharing one's own story as to why the conference issues matter.
    • Posting an interview with an elder.
    • Answering the question, "Getting older is getting better because..."

    We hope LeadingAge members, their residents, staff and family members will take this opportunity to become involved in discussions and formulation of aging services policies to take us through the next 10 years.

    Imagine an environment in which your organization's human capital is harnessed to maximize performance, outcomes, and satisfaction. 

    And, imagine your greater community viewing your organization as the strategically relevant expert to all things senior. 

    That's community engagement. 

    This video from Holleran features interviews with LeadingAge President and CEO Larry Minnix and various LeadingAge members.

    At an HJ Sims conference, Dr. Dilip Jeste spoke about Successful Aging and Senior Housing. Dr. Jeste is a past President of the American Psychiatric Association and Director of the Stein Institute for research on Aging and Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences at the University of California, San Diego.
     
    Dr. Jeste directly connected successful aging practices with environments provided by communities. According to Dr. Jeste, positive aging predictors include such psychological traits as optimism, resilience, wisdom, personal mastery, self-efficacy, and social engagement. Effective aging includes physical, cognitive, and social activities.
     
    Dr. Jeste then provided details for successful aging in the fields of diet, activities, stress reduction, health, and travel hygiene and social engagement. He also spoke about optimism bias -- the belief that the future will be much better than the past and the present. There is no decrease in optimism bias with aging. This bias, so important for positive aging, can be enhanced with the proper senior living environments.
     
    According to Dr. Jeste, “smart” senior housing that enables state-of-the-art geriatric healthcare and technology has the potential to transform aging. Housing is more than a shelter or a financial investment. It is becoming the home for healthcare, technology, lifestyle, and community engagement –- especially for retired seniors. Senior housing is moving from being a retirement community to providing for retirement in existing communities.
     
    For the detailed PowerPoint slides of Dr. Jeste’s presentation, please contact Anita Clavin at 203-418-9005 or aclavin@hjsims.com.
     

    Conferees from the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have reached consensus on a budget resolution
    setting out spending targets for broad categories of federal programs. 

    The president doesn’t sign the budget resolution, which is used to set overall spending levels that guide appropriators when they write those spending bills. However, we have to be concerned about the total amount of
    spending cuts it calls for.  

    If fiscal 2016 spending bills are drafted to accord
    with the budget resolution, as is required under the Budget Act, we will see
    significant declines in funding for senior housing programs and for home and
    community-based services.   

    The budget resolution pushes total spending on non-defense
    discretionary programs below sequestration levels that have previously caused
    Older Americans Act programs and senior housing to lose funds.

    The resolution instructs the committees with jurisdiction over
    health care to draft reconciliation legislation to repeal the Affordable Care
    Act (ACA). Although the budget resolution scores repeal as a budget savings,
    legislators are fully aware that President Obama will veto ACA repeal
    legislation, so the savings score is unrealistic. 

    Medicare and Medicaid

    The resolution does not require any changes in Medicare or
    Medicaid. However, it contains statements calling for Medicare “reform” into a
    voucher system and more state flexibility for Medicaid. 

    While we are not
    opposed to state flexibility, these proposals have consistently contained large
    cuts in federal Medicaid funding to the states, which we do strongly oppose.

    Because of concerns among federal officials and many legislators
    of both parties over Congress’s ability to draft fiscal 2016 spending bills in
    line with this budget, the Obama administration is trying to negotiate another
    agreement similar to the one reached in 2013 on replacing the sequester.

    According to CliftonLarsonAllen,
    the last several years have seen an uptick in both understanding and application
    of enterprise risk management (ERM) concepts in nonprofits, higher education
    institutions, and government organizations. 

    However, the conversations about
    risk in these sectors are often still tied to financial reserves.

    When
    confronted with risks or opportunities, the first tool organizations often turn
    to is financial reserves. With the Great Recession behind them, a lot of
    organizations have rebuilt their reserves, in many cases with increased
    sophistication, a longer time horizon, and with application of larger
    capitalization strategies. But determining an adequate level of reserves has
    always been more of an art than a science.

    We’re seeing organizations ask
    important and smart questions about their risk tolerance:

    • Having
      survived the Great Recession, what is our risk tolerance?
    • What level of
      reserves do we need for our organization?
    • What risks -- strategic,
      operational, and environmental -- are driving these needs?
    • Can we
      develop a reserves model that can be updated in real-time based on changing
      variables?

    A risk assessment primer 

    To keep things
    simple, let’s define risk as the chance of something happening, measured in
    terms of probability, and any impact that may adversely or positively affect the
    achievement of an organization’s long-term strategic or business objectives. 

    Remember, risk is neutral. It can come out of a period of intense organizational
    growth and activity, repositioning, or any number of other triggers.

    All
    organizations face inherent risk and uncertainty: economic slowdown, regulatory
    changes, increased competition, and failure to innovate and meet public demands,
    to name a few. 

    The challenge for management is to determine what level of risk
    to accept as the organization strives to grow and deliver value, and what costs
    to incur to effectively manage and mitigate risks along the way.

    Many
    organizations have responded by enhancing their governance related to risk
    management. At its core, ERM is about establishing the oversight, control, and
    discipline to drive continuous improvement of an entity’s risk management
    capabilities in a constantly changing operating environment. 

    As you can guess,
    the scope of ERM is wide as it relates to an entire enterprise.

    Where
    risk and reserves meet 

    We are seeing trends in how organizations are
    rethinking their financial reserves in the context of risk management. Rather
    than saying, “3 months of expenses sounds about right,” they’re taking the
    time and effort to articulate, quantify, and translate their risks into
    activity-based reserve targets. 

    They’re also developing practical tools to use
    on an ongoing basis to revise their reserve targets based on changing
    operational and environmental risks and variables. The dialogue about risks and
    uncertainties is much more nuanced, and now includes: 

    • Probabilities.
    • Sources of protection, whether reserves,
      insurance, or litigation.
    • Concrete dollar amounts.
    • Factoring
      methodologies recognizing that not everything is going to happen at once.

    When all of these issues are rolled up into an ERM strategy,
    organizations are armed with a financial reserve philosophy, approach, and tools
    that are dynamic enough to stand up to realities that vary in severity and
    business impact.

    How we can help 

    Our risk management
    professionals can provide guidance and tools to develop your organization’s risk
    profile, assess your current risk management processes against best practices,
    and design a risk management program tailored to your organizational needs.

    This article was originally written for CliftonLarsonAllen, and is used here with permission.   

    The new year brings numerous tax law changes, including updates to the IRS Form 990. Is your
    organization prepared?

    Join BKD professionals for valuable information on a number of topics, including recent
    tax developments and how those could affect not-for-profit organizations in health care, higher education and social services. 

    This webinar will cover hot topics and proposed legislation that could change the way you raise funds, pay your employees and run your organization.

    Learning Objectives

    Upon completion of this webinar,
    participants will be able to:

    • Identify changes in 2014 Form 990.
    • Discuss recent tax developments for not-for-profit organizations.
    • Describe how these developments impact their organization.

    In the ever-changing health care environment, the accuracy and effectiveness of financial forecasts face increased scrutiny and questioning from health care entity boards and management teams. 


    As a result, BKD has developed a 3-part series to address the most common mistakes in financial forecasts prepared by health care entities.


    In this third and final article, we address issues organizations have in aligning forecasts with their overall strategic mission and communicating the forecast to the necessary individuals. 


    Part I addressed mistakes related to the effect of complacency on the forecasting process, while Part II examined mistakes related to maintaining consistency among forecast assumptions.


    Some organizations think of annual budgets or forecasts as a routine, check-the-box procedure that must be performed each year but never fully utilized. In addition, some management teams get stuck in the details and overlook implementing the forecast as part of the organization’s overall plan. 


    Making any of the mistakes outlined below decreases the accuracy of any forecast and may lead to difficult-to-explain budget-to-actual variances next year:


    Disconnect from Strategic Plan


    Successful organizations often employ a long-term strategic plan, especially when planning for major additions or renovations, changes in services offered, etc. In preparing a forecast, consider all aspects of the strategic plan. 


    Failing to incorporate the strategic plan creates confusion as to which plan has higher priority. For example, if one of your organization’s primary goals is to increase orthopedic services to serve the community’s aging population, management should estimate the potential impact of such changes to allow for future comparative analysis.


    Not Involving the Right People


    While forecast preparation often falls to the finance department, financial results often are driven by individuals in other areas of the organization. 


    Make sure those charged with the execution of the plan have input into the forecast and buy into the assumptions used. For instance, board members should be involved in significant decisions, e.g., issuance of new debt or major capital expenditures, while medical staff should be involved in patient volume forecasts. 


    In addition, each department should provide input to a certain extent to allow for buy-in and increased motivation to achieve the forecasted results.


    Not Holding Individuals Accountable


    Once the right individuals are involved in the forecast, they should be held accountable for future results. Depending on the organizational structure, make sure at least one person is responsible for each major assumption included in the forecast. 


    For example, department heads often are responsible for monitoring department expenses, while members of the executive team may be held accountable for larger strategic changes.


    This gives members of the management team a specific focus rather than everyone trying to manage everything at once.


    Not Communicating Results


    Although most organizations prepare some variety of budget or forecast, many do not fully use it throughout the year. If those expected to follow the budget aren’t aware of monthly or year-to-date results on a timely basis, they cannot alter future decisions to better align with the forecast. 


    To avoid this, prepare regular reporting packages, typically on a monthly basis, showing budget variances. To make it even more useful, include additional narrative explaining the main reasons for any variances. 


    For instance, an increase in salary expenses can be explained by increased overtime that month, which was caused by increased patient activity and higher revenues.


    It is imperative to consider how the forecast fits into the organization’s overall strategy and management structure for it to be used successfully.


    Making sure the appropriate individuals are involved both on the front end, with the determination of the forecast assumptions, and on the back end, when the assumptions are actually implemented, improves the accuracy and achievability of the forecast. 


    Lastly, making sure to communicate actual results compared to the forecast on a timely basis will enable management to course-correct throughout the year and make any necessary adjustments.


    This article was originally written for BKD, and is used here with permission.

    BKD’s exempt organization tax professionals prepare thousands of IRS Forms 990 every year. Throughout the course of the year, our tax professionals review thousands more Forms 990 prepared internally or by other professional accounting firms. 


    As a result of these reviews, 1 fact remains clear: Many Forms 990 are prepared incorrectly or incompletely.


    Because the Form 990 is a public document -- nearly all are posted on GuideStar.com and many organizations post them on their websites -- it is important that the Form 990 be prepared completely, correctly and consistently. 


    An incorrect Form 990 could reflect negatively on the organization when reviewed by possible donors, the community or even the media. More importantly, an incorrect Form 990 might be viewed as an incomplete filing by the IRS, subjecting the organization to late filing and other penalties even though a Form 990 was filed.


    Unfortunately, our exempt organization tax professionals discover numerous common errors and omissions. They range from inconsequential errors that should be corrected in future filings to serious errors that merit an amended filing. 


    Here are some of the most common errors our tax professionals encounter.


    Form 990, Page 1, Part I 


    Page 1 of Form 990 includes summary information relating to the organization and creates a first impression for the reader. 


    Many times, organizations include a lengthy summary of their most significant activity on Page 1. When this description is too long, most return preparation programs will carry over the description or print the description in its entirety at the end of the return in Schedule O. 


    Organizations should consider a concise description that fits in the allotted space on the first page, so the reader can gain a clear idea of the organization’s most significant activity without searching through the voluminous disclosures in Schedule O.


    Part I of Page 1 also includes summary information regarding the number of voting board members, employees and volunteers. Unpaid board members are considered volunteers for purposes of reporting the number of volunteers on Page 1. 


    Organizations with unpaid board members often fail to count them as volunteers on Form 990.


    Form 990, Part V 


    Part V of Form 990 asks several questions that may result in additional IRS filings. In many cases, some of these questions are applicable to an organization while many questions are not applicable. Inapplicable questions should not be answered “yes” or “no.” 


    Instead, these questions should be left blank according to the IRS instructions. Often, organizations answer nonapplicable questions as “no” in error. 


    If a question is answered "no" when the question should be left blank, the organization appears to not be in compliance with that particular item.


    Form 990, Part VI 


    Total members of the governing body and total independent members of the governing body are often counted incorrectly on Form 990. 


    The IRS instructions ask for the total number of voting members of the governing body, which may not be the same number listed in Part VII of Form 990. 


    In addition, the concept of independent members of the governing body is defined differently for purposes of Form 990 completion. Often, members of the governing body who are compensated for services performed outside their service as a board member, as well as members of the governing body who have interested person transactions reported on Schedule L, are counted as independent board members in error.


    Business and family relationships often are not disclosed as required in question 2. Exempt organizations that have large numbers of board members -- more than 20 -- or are located in rural areas are likely to have a business or family relationship with fellow board members. This question is often answered “no” in error.


    Many organizations outsource management duties to another company or service provider. Part VI, Question 3 asks for additional information when a management company (related or not related to the organization) has been hired to perform specific services for the organization. 


    When this question is answered “yes,” the required footnote in Schedule O is often missing or incomplete. More importantly, reporting of compensation paid to the management company as a highest-paid independent contractor in Part VII is omitted. 


     Compensation disclosures required for the individuals performing the duties often are not properly disclosed, and the expense generally is not reported correctly as a fee for services in Part IX.


    Compensation Reporting Errors Form 990 Part VI & Schedule J 


    Related compensation and overall compensation reporting, including the number of Forms W-2 and Forms 1099 filed with the IRS, often is not reported correctly among organizations included in a related group of Form 990 filers. 


    Reporting compensation paid, or deemed to be paid, by the organization and paid, or deemed to be paid, by a related organization is required based on the thresholds outlined in Part VII for officers, directors, trustees, key employees and highest-paid employees (ODTKEs). 


    Many times, compensation reporting is incomplete. Designations as to the ODTKE’s role with the organization are not checked or are checked in error. The IRS includes complete definitions of each role as an officer, director, trustee, key employee or highest-paid employee, including definitions of current and former ODTKEs, which often are overlooked, resulting in incorrect reporting. 


    In addition, required footnotes (now included in Part VII for 2012) disclosing the hours worked per week for related organizations are often incomplete or omitted.


    Schedule J reporting is required when compensation exceeds a certain threshold. Page 1 of Schedule J includes various questions regarding benefits provided to ODTKEs, and each question requires additional disclosure when checked. Many benefits are not checked on Page 1 even though a disclosure is made in Part III, or benefits are indicated in Part I but the disclosure required in Part III is lacking or completely omitted.


    Part II of Schedule J often is completed in error, as well. Allocations of amounts reported in Box 5 of Form W-2 as base, bonus and other compensation often are omitted by reporting 100 percent of the amount as base compensation. 


    Deferred compensation reporting can be misunderstood and includes employee retirement plan deferrals (included in Box 5 of Form W-2, causing duplicate reporting of the amount). Deferred compensation often omits accrued bonuses not paid within two and a half months after year-end and other employer deferral items. 


    The increase in actuarial value of a defined benefit plan accounts is a common deferred compensation reporting omission. In addition, for years when a deferred compensation amount becomes taxable and reportable on Form W-2, organizations fail to report the double reporting in Column F.


    When completing Part VII, Section B, organizations often include nonservice-provider vendors among the five highest-paid independent contractors listing in error.


    Form 990 Parts VIII & IX 


    While reporting revenue and expenses of an exempt organization should be routine, many times items of revenue or expense are not properly reported. Common reporting issues include:


    • Reporting fees paid for services rendered (contract services) incorrectly.
    • Contributions and revenue reported in the incorrect column.
    • Security sales, fundraising and/or gaming events not reported properly.
    • Incorrect or lacking allocations of a reasonable amount of expense to either management G&A or fundraising expense.
    • Related rental revenue not reported as program related revenue on Line 2.
    • Incorrectly recognizing membership dues as contributions (Line 1) or program-related (Line 2).
    • Missed reporting of amounts paid to disqualified persons or their family members -- generally compensation paid to a family member of an ODTKE reported on Schedule L -- on Line 6 of Part IX.

    Schedule A Public Charity Status 


    Schedule A reports the public charity status of an organization. Many times, organizations select the wrong public charity type in Part I. For organizations classified as publicly supported, one of the public support tests included in Part I or Part II must be completed. 


    These computations often are completed inaccurately with incorrect amounts reported throughout. A common error is the omission or incorrect computation of excluded support on Line 5 of Part II or Line 7 of Part III.


    Schedule H Hospitals 


    Schedule H is completed by organizations licensed as a hospital under state law and provides information regarding financial assistance and community benefits. Schedule H also is the mechanism to report compliance with the new exemption requirements for tax-exempt hospitals under new Section 501(r). 


    Accurate completion of Schedule H is essential to maintaining the exempt status of a hospital organization. Unfortunately, reporting errors on Schedule H are too broad and numerous for the confines of this article; BKD will present additional information on Schedule H in the near future.


    Schedule K Supplemental Information on Tax-Exempt Bonds 


    Schedule K reports information regarding tax-exempt financing. Schedule K is completed for exempt bond issues exceeding $100,000 and issued after December 31, 2002. Included in Schedule K are numerous questions assessing the compliance with several IRS requirements. 


    Incorrectly completing Schedule K could trigger additional inquiry from the IRS. Many times, organizations and practitioners do not understand Schedule K and its purpose contributing to the reporting errors. 


    Organizations should take care to complete Schedule K completely and accurately and consider engaging bond counsel to assist with completion or review of Schedule K.


    Schedule L Transactions with Interested Persons 


    Schedule L reports a variety of transactions with interested persons. Many organizations define interested persons too narrowly and only inquire as to possible transactions with board members. 


    Interested persons are defined differently depending on the type of transaction reported on Schedule L, and inquiries regarding these transactions should include not only officers, directors and trustees but also key employees, highest-paid employees and, in some cases, certain donors. 


    Organizations should take care to inquire about interested-person transactions regarding all interested persons.


    Once a transaction with an interested person is identified, the organization reports certain information in Schedule L. Business transactions tend to be the most often reported transaction on Schedule L. Part IV requests the name of the interested person (and not the ODTKE), the relationship and amount of the transaction. In many cases, the ODTKE of the organization is reported in error as the interested person.


    Schedule O Miscellaneous Disclosures 


    Schedule O is used to provide required disclosures based on the answers to certain questions contained in the core form of Form 990. The disclosures range from expanded program service descriptions and internal Form 990 review processes to availability of certain documents for public access and compensation-setting processes. 


    Often the disclosures are incomplete, not updated for current reporting information or so lengthy the purpose of the disclosure is lost to the reader. 


    Care should be taken to read each disclosure to ensure it answers the question or describes the issue completely, correctly and concisely.


    Schedule R Related Organizations & Unrelated Partnerships 


    Related organizations are reported on Schedule R of Form 990. The instructions to Schedule R provide detailed definitions for related organizations that should be reported in Schedule R. 


    When an organization or entity is considered related to an exempt organization, related compensation and other items will be reported elsewhere in Form 990. 


    Therefore, care should be taken to only report organizations or entities that meet the related definitions in the instructions. A common omission is the reporting of a supported or supporting organization as related in Schedule R.


    Part I of Schedule R reports identifying information for disregarded related entities owned by the organization. Exempt organizations often use single-member limited liability companies (SMLLC) for a variety of reasons. These entities are 100 percent owned by the exempt organization and are disregarded for federal tax purposes. As such, the activity of the SMLLC should be included in the Form 990 as if the SMLLC did not exist. 


    Many times, organizations fail to include the activity of the SMLLC in the Form 990 filing, or they report only the net income of the SMLLC in error.


    Part V, Line 1 of Schedule R reports various transactions between the organization and related organizations reported elsewhere on Schedule R. Part V, Line 2 provides numerical information regarding the various transactions listed in Part I. 


    The instructions to Schedule R direct only controlling entities to complete the numerical information requested in Line 2. Line 2 often is completed by noncontrolling organizations in error. 

    Pages

    Subscribe to Housing