Bay Area Medical Center Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
392020734
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Marinette, WI, USA
Phone
7157354200
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,966
Expenses
$876,729
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWARD HARDING (BAMC - CEO)
  • JOHN HOFER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOUNDATION)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD HARDING (BAMC - CEO): $230,754 total reported compensation
  • JOHN HOFER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOUNDATION): $27,370 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist in the delivery of high-quality healthcare by raising funds to support growth and technological advances at bay area medical center (bamc); to honor donors' requests for the use of their contributions; and to earn their trust by being responsible stewards of all charitable contributions.

What it reported doing in 2019

Bay area medical center foundation, inc. Obtained contributions from individuals in the community and contributed funds to bay area medical center, inc. For the medical center's cancer care center, other capital equipment used in delivering patient care and for other patient care expenditures. Expenditures are often for items that benefit a number of patients over a period of time; expenditures for the benefit of an individual recipient are rare.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.3%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $215.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th 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; 79th 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: -2,093.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $827K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2017 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.