Foundation for Advancing Veterans' Health Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742522436
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2106175285
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Disciplines Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,279,758
Expenses
$7,592,277
Assets
$4,637,188
Liabilities
$712,398

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHELLE TRIMBLE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID BELL (DIRECTOR): $379,655 total reported compensation
  • JULIANNE FLYNN (DIRECTOR): $379,597 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER YUN (DIRECTOR): $376,958 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote, administer, and conduct research and education at the va to improve the health and lives of veterans.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation for advancing veterans' health research administered funding for approximately 60 research and education projects to benefit veterans' health and well-being in partnership with the south Texas veterans health care system. Projects were conducted in the areas of cancer, mental health, traumatic brain injury, human performance optimization, vaccines/infectious diseases, endocrinology/diabetes, aging, spinal cord injury, medication effectiveness, pulmonary fibrosis, and point-of-care ultrasound.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -20.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $380K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.