Beacon Health Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351536129
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
South Bend, IN, USA
Phone
5746473549
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,329,363
Expenses
$6,481,369
Assets
$50,468,125
Liabilities
$2,074

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kreg R Gruber (CEO)
  • Susan King (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kreg R Gruber (CEO): $2,136,422 total reported compensation
  • Jeffrey P Costello (CFO): $1,266,210 total reported compensation
  • Susan King (President): $596,583 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We deliver outstanding care, inspire health and connect with heart.

What it reported doing in 2024

On November 23, 2011, Beacon Health System, Inc. (the "Corporation") was founded as the parent organization of Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. ("MHSB") and Elkhart General Hospital, Inc. ("EGH"). Its mission is to provide a comprehensive range of health-related services for North Central Indiana and Southwestern Michigan. The Corporation, along with its subsidiaries, offers a continuum of care to the community, encompassing health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis, inpatient and outpatient care, and home health services. The Corporation oversees MHSB, EGH, Community Hospital of Bremen, Three Rivers Health, Beacon Medical Group (BMG), Beacon Health Foundation (BHF) (formerly Memorial Health Foundation, Inc. (MHF)), and Beacon Health Ventures, Inc. (BHV), collectively known as the "System."Beacon Health Foundation, Inc. (BHF) is a tax-exempt, non-private foundation. It was established in 1982 to provide philanthropic support to MHSB and continues to provide this support to the newly created Corporation through contributions and management of endowment funds. Beacon Health Foundation's mission is to support the work of Beacon Health System by inspiring generosity and commitment. BHF exists to allow people to support Beacon in a way that connects them with their impact on our work in the community. Beacon Health Foundation works to support Beacon Health System in three key ways:- Creating relationships- Inspiring investment- Stewarding resourcesCreating Relationships: Beacon Health Foundation (BHF) raises funds for Beacon Health System, Inc. BHF's job is to ensure that the charitable support of Beacon is used to create the most significant impact possible in a way that is most meaningful to each donor. The Health System relies on our community's support to ensure that we can always provide the highest quality services for every patient.Inspiring Investment: In 2024, fundraising at Beacon Health Foundation focused on the following areas:- Corporate fundraising- Grant writing, focusing on private, corporate and family foundations- Online giving- Major gift fundraising- Direct mail fundraisingFunds available at BHF to support Memorial's mission as of December 31, 2024: Children's Services $1,982,465Trauma Services $6,957,508System Priorities $955,113Cancer Services $225,344Stewarding Resources: In 2024, funds from Beacon Health Foundation were to support the following areas at Beacon: Distribution Fund Description and Amount: Cancer Services $5,049 Cardiovascular Services $1,802 Children's Services $771,277Children's Support Services $94,898Community Impact $193,237Continuing Education $58,274Education Endowments Spendable $45,702Emergency/Trauma Services $38,899Events $157,552Family Medicine Residency $69,582Patient Care Programs $2,028,100Physician Philanthropy Council $137,508Scholarships $55,960Support Services $127,813System Priorities $633,841Women's Services $8,709Total $4,428,203

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.2%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.79; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.2% of revenue deployed · 68.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.1M · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.