Rocky Mountain Adventist Healthcare Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840745018
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3037157600
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,171,994
Expenses
$5,708,659
Assets
$38,749,882
Liabilities
$6,172,132

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Spenst Brett (Trustee/Regional Pres-CEO)
  • Pottle Deanna Gayle (President/Foundation Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Spenst Brett (Trustee/Regional Pres-CEO): $1,456,581 total reported compensation
  • Enderson Dan (Trustee (end 03/24)): $1,200,559 total reported compensation
  • Dodds Rick (Trustee): $796,809 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We extend the healing ministry of Christ by caring for those who are ill and by nurturing the health of the people in our communitities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary exempt purpose of Rocky Mountain Adventist Healthcare Foundation (the Foundation) is to conduct fund raising on behalf of Portercare Adventist Health System (PAHS), an IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization that operates five acute care hospitals. Support is provided through AdventHealth Avista Foundation, AdventHealth Castle Rock Foundation, AdventHealth Littleton Foundation, AdventHealth Parker Foundation, AdventHealth Porter Foundation, AdventHealth Hospice Porter Foundation, AdventHealth Global Health Initiatives, and Operation Walk Denver.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 89.5%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 74.4%; rating input score 74; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th 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: 20.4%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.79; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.6% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 33 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 129 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.