Advocates for Upstate Medical University University Hospital Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
160915951
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Syracuse, NY, USA
Phone
3154645610
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$134,112
Expenses
$136,877
Assets
$259,662
Liabilities
$2,267

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY KUREC (PRESIDENT)
  • CHET WILK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JONATHAN ADLER (ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR): $14,431 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advocates for upstate medical university/university hospital was formed to promote and advance the welfare of upstate medical university, a campus of suny, which is an agency of the state of ny. Upstate includes university hospital as well as academic and medical facilities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocates for upstate medical university promotes the welfare of suny upstate medical university, upstate university hospital, and upstate community hospital, located in syracuse, New York by awarding grants that help fund various programs and departments within the hospital and university. In addition, advocates provides support through the operation of a gift shop, snack bar and a fundraiser for the benefit of upstate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.6%; rating input score 95; 57th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.9; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.8% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $119K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.