Cleveland Va Medical Research and Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341710663
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2162313241
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,207,373
Expenses
$5,556,320
Assets
$3,354,578
Liabilities
$701,729

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW PACYNA FACHE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF MOORE PHD (EXECUTIVE DI): $175,478 total reported compensation
  • BRIGID WILSON (HCE): $168,470 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary tax-exempt purpose of the cleveland va medical research and education foundation, a 501(c)(3) medical research foundation established in accordance with title 38, subchapter iv-research and education corporations, sections 7361-7368, is to support biomedical and clinical research as well as to provide health-related educational activities in conjunction with the louis stokes cleveland department of va medical center (vamc). Research sponsored by the cleveland va medical research and education foundation benefits veterans treated at the louis stocks cleveland vamc and the general public by advancing knowledge in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability. Education programs supported by the cleveland va medical research and education foundation help disseminate the results of research so they may be translated to clinical practice, provide hospital staff with training in the latest treatments, and help patients understand and manage their medical conditions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Dr. Hamid charkhkar, phd- dod "neurally integrated lower limb prosthesis for home and community use" the objective of this study is to develop and deploy a fully implantable, self-contained lower limb sensory neuroprosthesis that is easy-to-use in the community and/or active-duty environments. Doing so could provide warfighters with lower limb loss the ability to potentially return to active duty or facilitate resumption of a healthy and socially engaged lifestyle. Conventional prostheses are not designed to effectively interface with compromised skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems following a lower limb amputation. Although numerous advanced prostheses have been developed, no commercially available device can provide a direct neural connection to the remaining nerves in the residual limb so that somatosensory feedback of prosthetic foot-floor interactions can be utilized. Sensory restoration approaches using a direct neural interface have reported positive effects, including an increase in walking speed, reduction in phantom pain, and lighter weight perception of the prosthesis. However, most tests with these systems have been performed in controlled laboratory environments, and their effects during activities of daily living are largely unknown. Probing such effects requires examining the long-term use of these prostheses outside the laboratory while users engage in challenging physical activities typical in their everyday lives. We hypothesize that prolonged use of the neuroprosthesis at home and in the community will improve standard static and dynamic measures of balance and gait stability revealed through quantitative posturography and gait analysis.

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 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 82.5%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 82.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.