AHIMA Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510245159
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3122331100
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$147,396
Expenses
$311,284
Assets
$4,481,091
Liabilities
$1,565,921

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mona Calhoun (AHIMA Board President)
  • Lauren Riplinger (Interim Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lauren Riplinger (Interim Executive Director): $312,868 total reported compensation
  • Mona Calhoun (AHIMA Board President): $30,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ahima foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and philanthropic arm of the american health information management association (ahima) dedicated to advancing health to transform lives. Founded in 1962, ahima foundation's programs, research, and projects continue to evolve helping families make informed health decisions, guiding evidence-based healthcare system policies and practices, and educating and training aspiring and current health information professionals. Recognizing that health information is human information, ahima foundation works extensively to convene interdisciplinary stakeholders to identify and address unmet public health and education needs. Learn more at www.ahimafoundation.org.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research: ahima foundation is committed to establishing public and private collaborations to advance health services research and commissioned work focused on the management of health information to enrich the him knowledge base by producing and publishing evidence-based policies, promising new practices, and practical options for decision makers on electronic health information for health equity, direct to consumer health literacy interventions outside of a clinical/provider setting, and provider-driven interventions used in treatment/care to better inform future ahima foundation programing around health literacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -111.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.4; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $166K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $313K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.