Heart Valve Voice Us

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814459237
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
7039293706
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$233,521
Expenses
$234,377
Assets
$139,817
Liabilities
$2,500

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDSAY VIDENIEKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU SEP 2024))
  • KARISSA CHARLES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FROM OCT 2024))

People named in this filing

  • DONNETTE SMITH (CHAIR)
  • TERESA WRIGHT-JOHNSON (VICE CHAIR)
  • SUE PESCHIN THRU 624 (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Heart valve voice us is a nonprofit patient advocacy organization. We advocate for early detection, meaningful support, and timely access to appropriate treatment for all people affected by heart valve disease.

What it reported doing in 2024

Patient community building and awareness: heart valve voice built the my valve my voice patient community and developed related social media, video, and other campaigns to engage patients and raise awareness of heart valve disease. This was funded by an every heartbeat matters grant from the edwards lifesciences foundation.valve in research: with a eugene Washington engagement award from the patient centered outcomes research institute. Heart valve voice us initiated a virtual training program for patients to become research advisors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 58.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.