National Forum for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272257461
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8668943500
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Heart and Circulatory System Diseases, Disorders

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$528,898
Expenses
$1,683,839
Assets
$2,032,481
Liabilities
$483,730

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • John M Clymer (Exec. Director): $361,432 total reported compensation
  • Julie A Harvill (Director of Operations): $226,034 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Childress (Director of Programs): $219,993 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to spark and lead collaborative action to ensure optimal cardiovascular and metabolic health and well-being for all through their lifespan.

What it reported doing in 2024

Many Americans living with cardiovascular disease face significant barriers to receiving the care they need. The National Forums Value & Access Collaborative (VAC) brings together a diverse group of stakeholders-including patients, providers, purchasers, payers, public health professionals, and representatives from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries -to address these challenges. By fostering collaboration and driving policy change, the VAC is breaking through longstanding obstacles, improving access to evidence-based treatments, and advancing a unified approach to value and access in cardiovascular care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 24th 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: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -218.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $959K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $361K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $117K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.