Mercy Health Foundation Lincoln

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811477159
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Troy, MO, USA
Phone
6365288551
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,720
Expenses
$23,706
Assets
$260,655
Liabilities
$5,064

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROTHERMICH ANTHONY (VP, OPERATIONS, BOARD MEMBER & PRESIDENT)
  • THORN MARK A (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATEJKA CHERYL L (FORMER OFFICER): $2,345,497 total reported compensation
  • ROTHERMICH ANTHONY (VP, OPERATIONS, BOARD MEMBER & PRESIDENT): $421,800 total reported compensation
  • THORN MARK A (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FINANCE): $257,223 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 lincoln is a not-for-profit corporation created to enhance, through philanthropy, the quality of care and services provided by mercy hospital lincoln 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 lincoln.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.1%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 24.6%; rating input score 25
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 53.3%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1,137.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.1% of revenue deployed · 24.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.3M · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 81 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 20/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.