Nathan Adelson Hospice Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880197147
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7027330320
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Hospices

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,598,057
Expenses
$3,503,786
Assets
$18,760,082
Liabilities
$596,762

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN S RUBEL (President & CEO)
  • CALEEN NORROD JOHNSON (Executive Director of the NAH Foundation)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN S RUBEL (President & CEO): $381,836 total reported compensation
  • CALEEN NORROD JOHNSON (Executive Director of the NAH Foundation): $181,402 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE FORBES (Philanthropy Officer): $119,736 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NAHF was established in 1983 for the sole purpose of serving as a fund-raising arm for Nathan Adelson Hospice and the Center for Compassionate Care, related tax-exempt organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nahf was established in 1983 to provide financial support for the programs and services provided by nathan adelson hospice, inc. (nah) and the center for compassionate care (ccc), related tax-exempt organizations. Nah began serving the southern Nevada community in 1978 and has provided care to more than 95,000 patients with life limiting illnesses. During 2024, the hospice provided 96,748 days of comprehensive hospice services to patients and their loved ones. Nahf provides funding to the hospice through special events, memorial/honor gifts, planned gifts, and grants from private foundations, individuals and corporate sponsors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.7%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: 37.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.35; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.7% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $382K · 23 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.