Newport Health Property Management Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222535539
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newport, RI, USA
Phone
4018466400
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$404,764
Expenses
$524,171
Assets
$3,239,623
Liabilities
$66,066

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marcia L Neiberg (President)
  • Nicholas P Dominick (Former President)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Fernandez (Trustee): $2,016,723 total reported compensation
  • Peter K Markell (EVP & CFO): $1,505,315 total reported compensation
  • Paul J Adler (Secretary): $1,028,380 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NHPM's purpose is the development of comprehensive, integrated health-care related services for the advancement and well-being of the community, through the ownership, management, and operation of real estate and other property, in furtherance of the purposes of Newport Health Care Corporation as well as Brown University Health and its affiliates.

What it reported doing in 2024

NHPM owns, operates, and maintains health care real estate properties for the purpose of supporting and encouraging the development of comprehensive, integrated health-care related services for the advancement and well-being of Newport County, Rhode Island, consistent with the mission of Newport Health Care Corporation. All of the organization's program service expenses are for this purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.18; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 162.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $524K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.