Hamot Health Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 251400999
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Erie, PA, USA
- Phone
- 8148773739
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,388,862
- Expenses
- $4,928,227
- Assets
- $28,594,827
- Liabilities
- $594,812
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT MAHOLIC DO (DIRECTOR): $827,239 total reported compensation
- MBEMBO BONGUTU (DIRECTOR): $441,241 total reported compensation
- CHARLES BOO HAGERTY (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $411,763 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 support upmc hamot in serving our patients, our communities, and one another in the tradition of quality, health, healing, and education.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation gives support to its affiliated organizations and the community through grants for operations, property, and equipment and programs to promote the mission of these other non-profit entities. During fy25, the foundation gave grants of $1,610,335 to upmc hamot for capital improvements, acquiring equipment, research, and medical education. The foundation also awarded grants to another affiliate, regional health services, inc. ("rhs") with $110,883 for financial support for providing medical services in a small community. Besides the affiliates, the foundation gave grants to erie community entities in the amount of $1,170,304.
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 97% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 89
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 77.9%; rating input score 78; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- 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: -12.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.8; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $827K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 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: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 19 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.