Centennial Medical Group

Legal name: Centennial Medical Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263946191
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Roseburg, OR, US
Phone
541.236.0003
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,866,932
Expenses
$88,661,373
Assets
$49,035,349
Liabilities
$202,722,860

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUSSELL WOOLLEY (VICE CHAIR/MARKET PRESIDENT COMMONSPIRIT OREGON)
  • JASON GRAY (CHAIR/PRESIDENT PHYSICIAN ENTERPRISE)
  • ARIC GROSHONG (FORMER BOARD CHAIR/PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN WILLIAMS SUSAN MD (ORTHOPEDIST GENERAL): $880,917 total reported compensation
  • RUSSELL WOOLLEY (VICE CHAIR/MARKET PRESIDENT COMMONSPIRIT OREGON): $811,800 total reported compensation
  • GARY BRONSTEIN MD (CARDIOLOGIST INVASIVE): $782,186 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 of Centennial Medical Group and Catholic Health Initiatives is to nurture the healing ministry of the Church by bringing it new life and viability in the 21st century. Fidelity to Gospel urges us to emphasize human dignity and social justice as we move toward the creation of healthier communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 63%; rating input score 63; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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: -18.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.13; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $82.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $881K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.3M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 332 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.