Advocates for Better Health - the Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510178010
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roseville, MN, USA
Phone
6126232885
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,539
Expenses
$98,806
Assets
$1,936,435
Liabilities
$150,480

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BECKY TIMM (CEO)
  • ELISABETH HURLIMAN MD PHD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BECKY TIMM (CEO): $111,563 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Abh | the foundation is a physician-led philanthropic organization that strives to improve the health and well-being of the community through strategic initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocates for better health - the foundation (abhf) has a rich history of responding to the needs of the community. Initiating a mass immunization effort aimed at rubella was one of its initial projects in the 1970s; today, the foundation's priorities are to provide funding to organizations that offer healthcare services and resource connections to our underserved residents. We also excel in celebrating our physicians of excellence and medical student scholars with award recognitions. Impact: honoring choices Minnesota is the stalwart public health initiative of the advocates for better health - the foundation, working in collaboration with organizations throughout Minnesota and the nation to promote advance care planning. Www.honoringchoices.org. In addition, the foundation is honored to serve as the fiscal agent for the dr. Pete dehnel public health advocacy fellowship, where medical students are giving the opportunity to join tcms members by engaging their voices and skills in public health advocacy work. Since 2015, abhf had provided over 387,000 in grant dollars to our community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 31.1%; rating input score 31
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -91.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.6; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.9% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 31.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.