Chilton Medical Center Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223084817
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pompton Plains, NJ, USA
Phone
9734512077
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,188,381
Expenses
$1,406,019
Assets
$17,704,944
Liabilities
$525,136

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joan Walker (Trustee-Aux President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kevin Lenahan (EVP-Chief Business & Strat): $3,385,858 total reported compensation
  • Michael Walter (SVP-Chief Financial Office): $1,872,440 total reported compensation
  • Maureen Schneider (Trustee-Pres Chilton Med C): $1,134,143 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Chilton Medical Center Foundation is solely dedicated to supporting the capital needs of Chilton Medical Center and its family of affiliates. Much like our founding benefactors, the Foundation raises money to enhance the quality of health care available to those we serve - funding clinical services, state-of-the-art technology, facility construction and modernizations, outreach initiatives and other vital programs. A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Foundation is led by a volunteer Board of Trustees that oversees the use of philanthropic donations and directs the organization in partnership with the hospital and representatives of our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Expenses incurred in supporting the charitable purposes, programs and services of Chilton Medical Center, a related Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which provides medically necessary healthcare services to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, religion or ability to pay.

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 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.3%; rating input score 91; 23rd 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: -18.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.59; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $756K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3.4M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 56 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 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.