Mary Immaculate Hospital

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540548200
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Suffolk, VA, USA
Phone
7578866000
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,953,428
Expenses
$162,757,083
Assets
$281,791,124
Liabilities
$20,623,591

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Toni Ardabell (Board Member, CEO-VA (Beg 05/18))
  • Brother Arthur Caliman (President - BSHR/DMC/MMC/MNCC)
  • Michael Kerner (Secretary/CEO-BSHR (End 09/17))
  • Mark Nantz (Secretary/Interim CEO-BSHR (End 05/18))
  • Darlene Stephenson (CEO - MIH)
  • Patricia Robertson (Former CEO MIH)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Nantz (Secretary/Interim CEO-BSHR (End 05/18)): $1,701,765 total reported compensation
  • Toni Ardabell (Board Member, CEO-VA (Beg 05/18)): $1,657,798 total reported compensation
  • Timothy Davis (Board Member): $1,396,559 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission is to bring compassion to health care and to be good help to those in need, especially those who are poor and dying. As a system of caregivers, we commit ourselves to help bring people and communities to health and wholeness.

What it reported doing in 2017

Mary Immaculate Hospital provides medical care to patients without regard to their ability to pay. Among the major services provided to the residents of Hampton Roads, three major areas of focus are orthopedics, general surgery and women's health. In addition, Mary Immaculate provides support for community services. Please see Schedule H for additional information regarding programs, community benefit programs and Charity Care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 30.4%; rating input score 30; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.9%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $152.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $10.4M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 87 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth 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.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.