Open Health Imaging Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472278834
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2018
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Stow, MA, USA
Phone
9788539281
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$17,163
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GORDON HARRIS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GORDON HARRIS (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT LEWIS (TREASURER)
  • TRINITY URBAN (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Open health imaging founding ("ohif"), a us 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, provides organizational, legal, and financial support for a broad range of open source software projects. The foundation provides an established framework for intellectual property, financial contributions and regulatory guidance that simutaneously limits potential legal exposure for our project committers. Through collaborative and meritocratic development process, ohif projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely available software products that attract active communities of users. Ohif uses an mit license which makes it easy for all users, commerical and individual, to deploy ohif products.

What it reported doing in 2018

The organization made accessible to the global community of developers its architected frameworks, apis, and openly implemented functional example with the objective that developers utilize advanced health imaging to their fullest potential. All of the expenses related to program services were donated in the form of services from contributors & founding members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -71.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -50.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2016 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.