Bon Secours Richmond Healthcare Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541201346
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8042818413
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,502,238
Expenses
$2,204,701
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

40 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

The Bon Secours Richmond Healthcare Foundation serves the greater Richmond, Virginia community through the support provided to the Bon Secours Mercy Health System and its not-for profit entities. The Bon Secours Richmond Healthcare Foundation contributes to the fulfillment of the mission of Bon Secours Mercy Health which is to bring compassion to healthcare 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 as part of the healing ministry of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. The Mission of the Sisters of Bon Secours "Good Help to Those in Need" supports the not-for-profit entities of Bon Secours Richmond Health Corporation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% 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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.8%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 21st 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: 72.2%; rating input score 72; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.5%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 51%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.8% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 31 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 40 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $260K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 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: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 140 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 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.