Florida Heart Research Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510474502
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3056743020
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Heart, Circulatory Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$344,246
Expenses
$356,287
Assets
$175,179
Liabilities
$4,200

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY CAVALIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY CAVALIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $286,111 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Florida heart research foundation (fhrf) was established to accept funds from the sale of the "stop heart disease" spcialty license plate. $25 from each plate sold or renewed goes to fhrf and is legislatively mandated to fund cardiovascular research, education and prevention in the state of Florida

What it reported doing in 2025

Stop heart disease "early career researcher of the year award" - a prestigious award is granted to the individual within the state of Florida whose research is felt to have had the broadest impact on the advancement of knowledge in the diagnosis and/or treatment of cardiovascular disease and must be an early career investigator early career is someone who is within 10 years of receiving his/her md or phd and does not have an nih or science foundation independent grant; if they are a phd candidate, they must be in their last year. To be considered for the award, the researcher must be nominated by a colleague, be a resident of and conduct research in the state of Florida and be active in the arena of clinical and/or basic cardiovascular research. These funds must be used for cardiac research conducted by the recipient of the award in Florida and an annual report and budget submission is a criteria of accepting this award.

Operating model

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

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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: 96%; rating input score 96; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -3.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $309K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $286K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.