Parkland Health Center Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900424964
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Farmington, MO, USA
Phone
5737566451
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$729,945
Expenses
$633,781
Assets
$6,572,638
Liabilities
$671,816

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCHNABEL ANNETTE (PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BORCHERS KIMBERLY MD (DIRECTOR): $621,733 total reported compensation
  • SCHNABEL ANNETTE (PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR): $490,870 total reported compensation
  • GOLDSMITH CHERI (FORMER TREASURER TERM 12/22): $195,052 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Parkland health center foundation is the fund development organization for parkland health center. The foundation identifies, cultivates, solicits, and communicates with donors to support programs, education, employees, equipment purchases, and projects for the (see schedule o) charitable activities of parkland health center.

What it reported doing in 2024

Capital - ob refresh, includes nurses station, partner sleep support, and labor and post partum beds. Women's imaging center equipment, includes a new ultra sound unit with higher imaging quality and patient stretcher. Medical inflatable for community education, and home sleep study kits to reduce wait times for home sleep study eligible patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 - 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 22nd 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: 13.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.37; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $539K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $622K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 37 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 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.