Northcare Hospice & Palliative Care

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431724225
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8166915119
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospices

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,912,681
Expenses
$8,253,475
Assets
$1,610,022
Liabilities
$862,134

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELAINE MCINTOSH (PRESIDENT THROUGH 9/21)
  • DAVID WILEY (SECR/PRESIDENT STARTING 9/21)
  • PAM BARRETT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELAINE MCINTOSH (PRESIDENT THROUGH 9/21): $284,562 total reported compensation
  • CLAY ANDERSON (PHYSICIAN): $252,358 total reported compensation
  • DAVID WILEY (SECR/PRESIDENT STARTING 9/21): $190,441 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Northcare hospice and palliative care exists to offer excellence in care, comfort and support to those experiencing a life limiting illness so they may embrace life until death with dignity.

What it reported doing in 2016

In patient facility-the northcare in patient facility provides the comforts of home coupled with the addition of experts at the patient's side. The 16 bed facility addresses not only medical and nursing care for patients facing advanced illnesses, but also emotional and spiritual support for patients and their families. This program is a supplement to our homecare program in that it is used when medical problems are too serious to manage in the home setting.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 10th 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: -19.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $285K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.