Flower Hospital

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
344428794
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Toledo, OH, USA
Phone
5675853618
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$247,914,781
Expenses
$424,807,723
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDALL OOSTRA (PHS PRES & CEO, EX OFFICIO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDALL OOSTRA (PHS PRES & CEO, EX OFFICIO): $3,061,318 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN S HANLEY (FORMER OFFICER): $1,569,411 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL P BROWNING (TREASURER): $1,328,491 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

As an integral part of promedica health system, inc., we are a valuable community resource providing comprehensive health services with expertise and compassion, and improving the health of those we serve through prevention, education and superior service.

What it reported doing in 2018

Consistent with our mission, flower hospital provides a significant amount of community benefit including community health improvement services, community benefit operations, subsidized health services, health professions education, and cash and in-kind contributions to community groups. - see schedule o.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% 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. 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: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th 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; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -71.4%; rating input score 0; 0th 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: 0.6%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $386.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3.1M · 54 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.3M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 458 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 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.