Miami Valley Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311040231
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dayton, OH, USA
Phone
9374999942
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,458,448
Expenses
$6,904,203
Assets
$82,323,079
Liabilities
$3,863,370

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JHANSI L KODURI MD (TRUSTEE): $1,026,434 total reported compensation
  • J MICHAEL SIMS (BOARD TREASURER): $686,420 total reported compensation
  • JENNY M LEWIS (SYSTEM VP - PHILANTHROPY): $460,831 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Enhance the patient and family experience at miami valley hospital by raising community support for cutting-edge programs and services which help build healthy communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promise to hope is a donor-funded service offered at miami valley hospital for pregnant and postpartum women with substance use disorder. The program staff coordinates prenatal and postpartum care and connects patients with chemical dependency treatment and mental health services. Program staff supports the mother and baby until the infant's first birthday. The team conducts weekly support group meetings to promote a safe place for moms to meet and build healthy relationships, learn parenting and life skills, and connect with resources available in the community. Outside speakers attend these meetings to provide education and share information about their services.promise to hope has cultivated strategic partnerships with area community service agencies to offer seamless access to care. Collaboration with our program partners helps provide ongoing support and coordinated care. This care includes medication-assisted treatment, group and individual counseling, prenatal care, weekly support groups, and other social services. Promise to hope care coordinators assess each mom's unique needs to provide continuing individualized support, advocacy, and referrals. Since its inception in may 2015, 986 moms have enrolled in the program. In 2024, 108 mothers enrolled in promise to hope.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 93.1%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 34%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.92; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.