CHIME Education Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208402295
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Phone
- 7346650000
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $217,584
- Expenses
- $315,799
- Assets
- $563,321
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RUSS BRANZELL (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- SUSAN ALDRICH (VICE PRESIDENT, EVENTS)
Highest reported compensation
- RUSS BRANZELL (PRESIDENT & CEO): $1,228,171 total reported compensation
- EDWIN CZOPEK (EVP CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER): $535,417 total reported compensation
- CALLI DRETKE (EVP CHIEF DIGITAL & MARKETING OFFICER): $401,842 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide scholarships and tuition support for healthcare leaders.
What it reported doing in 2024
The chime opioid task force (otf) was launched in early 2018 with a simple mission: to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic using the knowledge and expertise of the nation's healthcare it leaders. While our mission is simple, achieving it is not. Opioid addiction is a complex disease that requires long-term, if not lifetime, care from well-informed clinicians who are supported with easy-to-use and reliable tools. Since its inception, the task force has made a substantial impact on the opioid crisis by providing education and resources for both chime members and non-members through our opioid action center podcast and webinars covering a range of topics, public policy advancements in both influence and member education, virtual and face-to-face meetings, and the development and launch of the opioid action center website.
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 77% for direct work, and 23% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 83
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -45.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $218K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 3 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.