Omc Regional Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260022777
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Rochester, MN, USA
Phone
5072927200
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$952,294
Expenses
$343,840
Assets
$7,346,611
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM WEIR FACHE (DIRECTOR & OMC CEO)
  • JAMES HOFFMANN DO (DIRECTOR & OMC PRESIDENT)
  • TYLER COLEMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • DENISE KELLY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIM WEIR FACHE (DIRECTOR & OMC CEO): $1,035,401 total reported compensation
  • JAMES HOFFMANN DO (DIRECTOR & OMC PRESIDENT): $722,306 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN HIGGINS (OMC CFO): $669,483 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advocate for and support olmsted medical center and to assist it in funding quality healthcare services and education in the communities it serves.

What it reported doing in 2025

Carl and ihla petersen trust patient assistance program: omc regional foundation has designated proceeds from the carl and ihla petersen trust to assist with olmsted medical center patients and families who reside in olmsted county, that do not have sufficient insurance coverage nor financial means but are not eligible for medical assistance, to pay at least a portion of their medical bills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.4%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: 97%; rating input score 97; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 20th 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: 63.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.37; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.4% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $328K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding 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: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.