Oregon Health Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262808460
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5039432500
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$109,396
Expenses
$35,233
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ABIGAIL SEARS (CHAIR)
  • SEAN WHITELEY-ROSS (SECRETARY)
  • KIM KLUPENGER (DIRECTOR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To ensure the highest quality of care for all oregonians through an enhanced telehealth network, education, technological innovation and state-wide collaboration.

What it reported doing in 2014

Network construction and installation - the rhcpp provides financial support to eligible ohn participants for up to 85% of the costs associated with the construction and operation of their new broadband connection. Ohn is responsible for raising the 15% in matching funds for the one-time installation costs, and participants are required to pay the 15% match of monthly recurring costs.network operations center/technology and point of presence - as a core value-added service, the network operations center (noc) monitors the quality of the network 24/7 to ensure that vendors live up to the strict service level agreements established by ohn. The rhcpp subsidy also provides the support for up to 85% of costs associated with the construction and operation of the noc. Ohn has a point of presence (pop) solution to include healthcare providers who had telecommunication vendors that did not have a peering relationship with northwest access and exchange (nwax). Pop provides ohn the flexibility to accept other members with varying telecommunication providers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 29
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.2%; rating input score 18
  • Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 67.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -183.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -60.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -46.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.2% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.