Resuscitation Academy Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812193189
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2063825552
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Safety Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,140,863
Expenses
$1,061,778
Assets
$546,507
Liabilities
$92,717

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS REA (PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR)
  • ANN DOLL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN DOLL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $149,026 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Scientific and educational programs for the purpose of helping communities to improve best practices for managing cardiovascular emergencies.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Resuscitation Academy Foundation helps communities achieve best practices in pre-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. This entails providing the tools, skills, and strategies to help communities save more lives. The RAF network includes 10 "Lighthouses" across the United States that provide regional leadership to further the impact of the RAF mission. The alumni Network grew to 6,000 members representing 35 countries. With funding from the Cardiovascular Advances in Research and Opportunities Legacy (CAROL) Act, the RAF partners with the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) registry to identify and support communities at increased risk for poor survival outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 6.9%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.7% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $897K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.