Danbury Hospital & New Milford Hospital Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237425557
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Danbury, CT, USA
Phone
2037397227
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,901,005
Expenses
$18,563,316
Assets
$202,612,030
Liabilities
$3,153,151

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON ADAMS (DIRECTOR; DANBURY HOSPITAL PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL DEBARBA (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER; TREASURER): $2,336,530 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN WYATT (CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER; SECRETARY): $1,279,777 total reported compensation
  • SHARON ADAMS (DIRECTOR; DANBURY HOSPITAL PRESIDENT): $1,226,423 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 raise funds, reinvest and administer these funds and make distributions to danbury and new milford hospitals and other not-for profit health care affiliates.

What it reported doing in 2024

Danbury hospital and new milford hospital foundation, inc. Is a not-for-profit corporation located in danbury, Connecticut. It was organized as a non-stock corporation under the laws of Connecticut for the purpose of soliciting, receiving, holding, investing and administering contributions on behalf of the danbury hospital, new milford hospital and other not-for-profit healthcare affiliates.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.6%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 46.4%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.91; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.6% of revenue deployed · 46.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.3M · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $114K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 282 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.