Good Shepherd Community Health Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931170546
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Hermiston, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5416673419
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,170,678
- Expenses
- $390,860
- Assets
- $11,911,110
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEAN FIALKA (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DR ALLISON KHAVKIN (DIRECTOR (BE): $580,930 total reported compensation
- DR BRIAN LARSEN (DIRECTOR (EN): $569,155 total reported compensation
- ELIZABETH MARVIN (EXECUTIVE DI): $247,121 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To enhance the quality of life and general health of residents living in the west umatilla and morrow county communities in support of the mission of good shepherd health care system. (see continuation on schedule o)
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation granted awards to 14 organizations and scholarships to 48 recipients in the community during the fiscal year that help enhance the quality of life and general health of the residents in the area. Tournaments and other designated programs and events are held to fund projects in keeping with our mission. In december 2024, gschf partnered with hermiston kiwanis club to sponsor the festival of trees event, receiving over 44,261 in net proceeds for the foundation at this annual fundraiser. In february of 2025, we participated in pink ice night with the tri city americans raising over 12,000 for breast cancer support and awareness. (see continuation on schedule o)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.5%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 57.6%; rating input score 58; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 66.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.47; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $391K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $581K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 12 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 58/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.