Gootter-jensen Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203798976
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5206156430
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$358,739
Expenses
$329,844
Assets
$503,471
Liabilities
$244

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARC MURPHY JENSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW MESSING (PRESIDENT)
  • CLAUDINE MESSING (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARC MURPHY JENSEN (VICE PRESIDENT): $5,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The gootter-jensen foundation is dedicated to saving lives by defeating sudden cardiac death through increased awareness, education, scientific research and the distribution of aeds.

What it reported doing in 2025

Gifts to the gootter-jensen foundation fund research at the stanford cardiovascular institute, where doctors and scientists are working to find better ways to diagnose, treat, and prevent sudden cardiac death. In 2025, the gootter-jensen foundation funded two grants for $125,000 each to the stanford cardiovascular institute. They were both part of a two -year commitment for $250,000 for each study. The first study is on using genistein for treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Genistein is a natural isoflavonoid found in soybeans and has anti-inflammatory properties. The stanford team is treating cardiac patients with genistein and profiling the blood biomarkers with transcriptomics and proteomics. (continued on schedule o)the second study is on elucidating the effects of environmental pollutants on triggering cardiac arrhythmias. The 2 main environmental pollutants are (1) pm2.5 (particular matter 2.5) found commonly in wildfire and smog and (2) microplastics. To study the cardiovascular effect, the stanford team is exposing human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac organoids (ipsc-cos) with these pollutants and using a battery of sophisticated assays to measure the effect. This type of study allows you to use your "biological twin" (using ipsc) and convert them into "digital twin" dataset (via sequencing analysis).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 94; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.53; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $265K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.