Davis Health System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320185772
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Elkins, WV, USA
Phone
3046373155
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$771,651
Expenses
$627,393
Assets
$1,160,134
Liabilities
$80,915

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CINDEE CAMPBELL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL CVECHKO (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL BELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MISHA PHILLIPS-LEE (DIRECTOR): $272,490 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL BELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $180,184 total reported compensation
  • SHELLY AUGUST (DIRECTOR): $50,962 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We care for life.

What it reported doing in 2024

The davis house fund offers cancer patients and their family members a "home away from home" when it is necessary to travel to the dmc cancer care center for treatment. Not having to worry about where to stay or how to pay for lodging allows davis house guests to focus on the most important thing: getting well. The dhs foundation patient assistance funds, including the dmc cancer care center patient assistance fund, guardian angel general patient assistance fund, and noronha benevolent care fund, provide financial support to patients for medically necessary items and services (including a free mammogram program) that contribute directly to the overall health, wellness, and quality of life of the individual.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.3%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 45.8%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 78.5%; rating input score 79; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.7%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.3% of revenue deployed · 45.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $287K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $272K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 33 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 37/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.