Creighton University - Boys Town Healthcare Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470841669
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4022805750
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,804,323
Expenses
$4,302,351
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON BRUCE MD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON BRUCE MD (PRESIDENT): $692,217 total reported compensation
  • JUDY F RASMUSSEN (SECRETARY THRU 11/25): $614,114 total reported compensation
  • DR MARDELL WILSON EDD (PROVOST): $517,364 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To receive funds appropriated by the state of Nebraska from the Nebraska tobacco settlement fund, and to distribute these funds to creighton university and boys town national research hospital.

What it reported doing in 2025

To govern the creighton university and boys town national research hospital relationship for research, academic and clinical services, to receive funds as appropriated by the state of Nebraska through legislative action from the Nebraska tobacco settlement trust fund, and to distribute these funds by contract to creighton university and boys town national research hospital to enable such institutions to engage in, undertake and perform biomedical research as defined and permitted in the legislation and any supporting regulations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 15
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.1%; rating input score 8; 8th 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: 4.1%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $692K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 25/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.