Bon Secours Kentucky Health System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611381952
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5139525000
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$328,426
Expenses
$312,248
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

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

Overview

Mission

The mission is to bring compassion to health care and to be good help to those in need, especially those who are poor and dying. As a system of caregivers, we commit ourselves to help bring people and communities to health and wholeness.

What it reported doing in 2019

Bon secours Kentucky health system foundation, inc., ("bskhsf") is an irc 501(c)(3) organization that was established to support bskhs and raise funds to assist in meeting the constant demands of the ever-evolving field of health care. These funds allow for the creation of new services, the purchase of new equipment, and the provision of charitable health care services. Bskhsf is an integral part of bsmh, a caring community called together to make visible god's love and compassion. As a catholic ministry, bskhsf's and bsmh's mission is to work with others embracing the challenge of making wise and just decisions to foster an environment of healing for patients, staff, partners, and communities. Recognizing the dignity of each human being, bskhsf and bsmh relentlessly seek healing and wholeness for all peoples, especially those who are vulnerable, poor, or dying.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 69.6%; rating input score 70; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 20th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 121.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $856K · 31 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls 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: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 137 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 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.