Essential Hospitals Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521535611
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025850100
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,608,906
Expenses
$3,204,985
Assets
$9,238,029
Liabilities
$1,395,016

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRUCE SIEGEL (PRESIDENT & CEO, RECORDING SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRUCE SIEGEL (PRESIDENT & CEO, RECORDING SECRETARY): $2,193,857 total reported compensation
  • RHONDA GOLD (CFO): $736,846 total reported compensation
  • KALPANA RAMIAH (VP, LEADERSHIP & INNOVATION): $432,157 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Essential hospitals institute leads research, education, dissemination, and leadership development for america's essential hospitals. To advance the quality, safety, and affordability of care at essential hospitals, the institute identifies promising practices in the field, provides professional development training, promotes practice improvements, and disseminates innovative approaches to care. It does this with an eye toward improving individual and population health through community-integrated health care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants and healthcare: the essential hospital institute ("institute") continued to address the significant issues facing public hospitals, safety net organizations, communities, and related health policy issues of national priority. The institute's grant-supported research expands institutional knowledge on population health, patient-centered care, delivery system transformation, quality performance and improvement, and leadership development.the institute's work in 2024 emphasized three core areas: opioid use disorder (oud) workforce development, operational and facility preparedness, and community-integrated healthcare.opioid use disorder (oud) and workforce support:- with support from the cvs health foundation, the institute continued a four-year initiative to improve access to care for individuals with oud through three one-year learning collaboratives. The second collaborative was facilitated in 2024, including a site visit with all participating member hospitals. Recruitment began for the third and final cohort, which launched in november.facility preparedness and operational efficiency:- the kresge foundation supported a follow-up grant to identify resources for member hospitals in facility preparedness and operational efficiency improvements. Activities included an interest group, a luncheon at america's essential hospitals' vital conference, and a c-suite convening focused on developing actionable plans and sharing financial support options for infrastructure projects.workforce mental health and training:- with funding from george mason university through the health resources and services administration (hrsa), the institute disseminated interactive trainings and gathered insights from members about mental health and workforce development needs.mobile health access:- a grant from the leon lowenstein foundation supported a new initiative to improve primary care access through mobile van programs. The institute launched an eight-month learning collaborative with five member hospitals in Alabama, Virginia, and West Virginia to explore mobile care delivery challenges and solutions.peer learning and knowledge dissemination:- continued funding from the robert wood johnson foundation allowed the institute to facilitate peer-to-peer learning, revise the essential communities website, and develop a toolkit on workforce shortages and burnout. This toolkit was presented during a panel at the vital2024 conference.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. 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: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: 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: -22.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.88; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.6% of revenue deployed · 72.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.