Oakwood Healthcare Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383432073
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Dearborn, MI, USA
Phone
3135865052
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,921,836
Expenses
$3,141,689
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CONNOLLY BRIAN (FORMER OFFICER (END 2015)): $2,184,482 total reported compensation
  • DABBOUS SAMIR (DIRECTOR): $1,289,497 total reported compensation
  • KUMAR MD NEELAM (CHAIRPERSON): $655,339 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide support to entities that comprise oakwood healthcare, inc.'s healthcare system.

What it reported doing in 2017

Oakwood healthcare foundation operates exclusively for educational, scientific, and charitable purposes in support of the mission of the oakwood healthcare system, the healthcare delivery system of oakwood healthcare, inc. Oakwood healthcare foundation's purpose is to promote philanthropic investment of time, talent and treasure in support of oakwood's not-for-profit mission to provide excellence in care, healing and health to the individuals and communities we serve.during the period of 1/1/2017 to 6/30/2017, oakwood healthcare foundation raised more than $2.0 million in total funds. Oakwood healthcare foundation made more than $2.2 million in disbursement in 2017 to support multiple programs and initiatives including the following: - nicu equipment and refurbishment - $500,000 - cef operations & support programs - $411,123 - women's programs - $226,363 - staff education and scholarships - $173,594 - adolescent health centers - $153,540 - healthy communities - $150,703 - capital equipment - $133,382 - patient education and care programs - $66,890 - community heart screenings - $63,128 - obesity prevention - $53,864 - nurse navigators - $52,401 - telehealth - $50,101 - respiratory equipment - $49,819 - needy patient support - $45,014 - diabetes education - $34,280 - arts of the spirit - $32,119 - language assistance - $18,492 - employee support - $16,908 - medical education and research - $12,404 - minor equipment - $11,683 - wigs for women - $8,000 - senior programs - $5,604

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.9%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -37.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -76.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.1% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 26 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.