Corewell Health

Legal name: Beaumont Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364852171
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Southfield, MI, US
Phone
947.522.0100
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,752,975
Expenses
$37,956,826
Assets
$221,360,294
Liabilities
$4,220,170

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARGARET COONEY - CASEY (DIRECTOR PY/PRESIDENT PY)
  • RICHARD DALY (DIRECTOR PY/PRESIDENT PY)
  • CHRISTINA FREESE DECKER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA FREESE DECKER (CEO): $6,952,800 total reported compensation
  • DARRYL ELMOUCHI MD (DIRECTOR PY): $3,463,968 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW E COX (CFO): $3,081,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To improve health and health equity.

What it reported doing in 2024

The beaumont health foundation doing business as corewell health foundation southeast Michigan exists exclusively for the purpose of securing philanthropic gifts and grants to further the charitable purposes of corewell health east, to advance high quality health care for the benefit of all members of the communities it serves and to support corewell health east's nonprofit mission to provide compassionate, extraordinary care every day.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 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: 88.5%; rating input score 89; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th 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: -36.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.83; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $7M · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $460K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 70 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.