Bon Secours Community Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810667395
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Suffern, NY, USA
Phone
8453685151
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$59,079
Expenses
$49,307
Assets
$1,994,040
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY LEAHY MD (CEO - BSCHS)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY LEAHY MD (CEO - BSCHS): $1,401,986 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission is to make visible god's love and to be good help to those in need, especially those who are poor, vulnerable and dying. As a system of caregivers, we commit ourselves to help bring people and communities to health and wholeness as part of the healing ministry of jesus christ and the catholic church.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bon secours community hospital foundation is the fundraising arm of bon secours community hospital. Touching numerous residents in the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania tri-state region, the work of the bon secours community hospital foundation helps to fulfill the mission of bon secours to give compassion and healing to those in need. Just a few of the many ways the foundation supports bon secours community hospital include: raising funding for state-of-the-art technology, medical equipment, hospital infrastructure improvements, and contributions to st. Joseph's place, the roberta glinton memorial fund, and the emergency department.

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 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 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: 48%; rating input score 48; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 40.44; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 172.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 23 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.