Lourdes Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621258960
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Paducah, KY, USA
Phone
2704154042
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,501,103
Expenses
$1,165,073
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVEN GRINNELL (MARKET CEO, MHP-KY)
  • TARA MILLER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVEN GRINNELL (MARKET CEO, MHP-KY): $771,581 total reported compensation
  • TARA MILLER (PRESIDENT): $136,569 total reported compensation
  • VICKIE PITTARD (BOARD MEMBER): $23,380 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lourdes foundation was established to solicit, hold, invest and administer funds, property and interests for the benefit of mercy health partners - lourdes, inc. (dba lourdes hospital, inc.) and to make expenditures, transfers or distributions to further the mission of mercy health partners - lourdes, inc. Funds are raised primarily through special activities and the receipt of charitable contributions. Lourdes hospital provides health care to the community, with a focus on the poor and underserved.

What it reported doing in 2013

Supporting the charitable mission of lourdes hospital through the provision of charitable solicitation and investment services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.6%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $60.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 94.9%; rating input score 95; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 87.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 88.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.6% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $888K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $772K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 104 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.