Healthcare Industry Resilience Collaborative
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 873934206
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rochester, MN, USA
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,302,474
- Expenses
- $984,510
- Assets
- $685,009
- Liabilities
- $629,614
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jesse Schafer (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Jesse Schafer (Executive Director): $158,390 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Objective is to create industry level standardized frameworks which resiliency is the ability of a vendor to provide consistent flow of medical materials necessary for patient care. Approach includes increasing transparency and trust in healthcare supply relationships. Longer term, hirc will roll out a formal assessment program via third-party audit to validate supplier resiliency maturity and thus increase reliable access to medical materials in the united states and beyond.
What it reported doing in 2024
Objective is to create industry level standardized frameworks which define, measure, and elevate resiliency in healthcare supply chains. Resiliency is the ability of a vendor to provide consistent flow of medical materials necessary for patient care. Approach includes increasing transparency and trust in healthcare supply relationships. Longer term, hirc will roll out a formal assessment program via third-party audit to validate supplier resiliency maturity and thus increase reliable access to medical materials in the united states and beyond.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 37%; rating input score 37
- Program expense ratio: 49.8%; rating input score 50
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Missing
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 24.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.92; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 48.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 37% of revenue deployed · 49.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 37/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Liabilities line sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.