Mercy Health Foundation Jefferson
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 462797051
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chesterfield, MO, USA
- Phone
- 3145251000
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $676,551
- Expenses
- $2,723,038
- Assets
- $4,315,765
- Liabilities
- $41,610
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AMMONS CARL E ERIC (REGIONAL PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST MISSOURI)
- ECKENFELS DANIEL (PRESIDENT, MERCY HOSPITAL JEFFERSON)
- HELD ANDREW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PHILANTROPHY)
Highest reported compensation
- MATEJKA CHERYL L (FORMER OFFICER): $2,345,497 total reported compensation
- AMMONS CARL E ERIC (REGIONAL PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST MISSOURI): $1,106,956 total reported compensation
- ECKENFELS DANIEL (PRESIDENT, MERCY HOSPITAL JEFFERSON): $661,787 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As the sisters of mercy before us, we bring to life the healing ministry of jesus through our compassionate care and exceptional service.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mercy health foundation jefferson is a not-for-profit corporation created to enhance, through philanthropy, the quality of care and services provided by mercy hospital jefferson in Missouri. This objective is accomplished by raising revenue from a variety of sources including donations. The goal of the foundation is to seek, acquire, accept, hold, invest, re-invest, and administer any gifts, bequests, devises, benefits of trust, and property to use and disburse income and principal thereof for the benefit of mercy hospital jefferson.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -302.5%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.3M · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 83 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.