Richmond Eye and Ear Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161628388
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8045459434
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,450
Expenses
$1,084
Assets
$105,178
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MR TAYLAN BOZKURT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MR TAYLAN BOZKURT (CEO): $369,095 total reported compensation
  • MR JOHN HEADLEY (CFO): $186,342 total reported compensation
  • DR JAMIE PUCCI (Low Vision Director): $178,745 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To operate exclusively for the benefit of richmond eye and ear healthcare alliance (reeha). Reeha's mission is to operate an outpatient surgical hospital in a manner that promotes health for a broad cross section of the community; provide access to the availability of healthcare; fund health research and community grants; provide other health care services and funding as deemed appropriate by the board of directors; promote the use of technology, and provide education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through the charitable support of its parent organization, richmond eye and ear healthcare alliance (reeha), the richmond eye and ear foundation (the foundation) provides educational, charitable, and community support services to the community, including: 1) operating the low vision center, which provides low vision rehabilitation services to individuals with visual impairment, regardless of their ability to pay. Low vision rehabilitation is a costly, time-intensive endeavor, serving over 300 unique patients each year to reduce the impact of vision loss and improve independence and quality of life. 2) providing free vision and hearing screenings for pre-kindergarten children to detect potential visual and auditory problems at an early age, which is critical for academic success. Screenings are provided

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.1%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 96.9%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 97.03; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11,416%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $369K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.