Ohio's Hospice Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311769696
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dayton, OH, US
Phone
1.800.653.4490
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,877,246
Expenses
$6,417,191
Assets
$56,566,869
Liabilities
$9,552,026

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT ANDERSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • LORI ANN IGEL (PRESIDENT, OHIO'S HOSPICE FOUNDATION)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENT ANDERSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $568,279 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT MORRIS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $373,296 total reported compensation
  • LORI ANN IGEL (PRESIDENT, OHIO'S HOSPICE FOUNDATION): $204,657 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to celebrate the lives of those we have the privilege of serving by providing superior care and superior services to each patient and family.

What it reported doing in 2025

Support of its sole member, Ohio's hospice and its supported organizations through grants paid to support indigent care, pathways of hope, complimentary care, palliative care, as well as the overall community based model of care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 53.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.81; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 13 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 40.4% of revenue deployed · 59.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $568K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.