Foundation for University Hospital a New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471686351
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2014
Location
Newark, NJ, USA
Phone
9739725300
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,840,164
Expenses
$2,574,900
Assets
$5,518,688
Liabilities
$1,469,759

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSICA BACKOFEN (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $315,893 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation for university hospital was formed in 2014 for the exclusive purpose of supporting the operations of university hospital and the hospital's public mission to provide a comprehensive healthcare program and healthcare services to the greater newark community, including outreach and mobile health services, in accordance with the spirit and intent of the "agreements reached between community and government negotiators regarding New Jersey college of medicine and dentistry and related matters of april 30, 1968," as well as services in collaboration with the newark based schools of rutgers biomedical and health sciences.

What it reported doing in 2024

The following programs are supported by the foundation for university hospital through grants and other fundraising: a. Free cancer screenings for underserved women across greater newark.b. Providing meals to community members facing food insecurity.c. Type 1 diabetes autoantibody testing to determine risk amongst uh patients.d. Health equity programs to address social determinants of health, increase preventative care, and improve health and wellbeing for our community.e. Hospital workforce development programs to increase recruitment, retention, and employee wellness.f. Capital construction and equipment to modernize university hospital.g. Violence intervention program for victims of crime.h. Trauma recovery center.i. Trauma survivorship program.j. Maternal child health program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.8%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 32.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.14; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.8% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $316K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 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: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.