Rush Oak Park Hospital

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362183812
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, US
Phone
(708) 383-9300
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$201,956,978
Expenses
$183,487,503
Assets
$223,447,670
Liabilities
$65,532,432

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Patricia S O'Neil MAE (Former Officer): $1,603,687 total reported compensation
  • Carl T Bergetz JD (Chief Legal Officer, RUSH & Board Secretary, ROPH (start 11/24)): $1,335,342 total reported compensation
  • Dino P Rumoro DO MPH FACEP (Chief Administrative Officer RUMC & ROPH): $1,066,541 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Rush Community Service Initiative Program (RCSIP) is to provide community-based volunteer experiences for Rush students that enhance their ability to work in teams, develop patient relationships, care for diverse populations, and to provide targeted services based on community need.

What it reported doing in 2024

Patient Care - Rush Oak Park Hospital (ROPH) is a community hospital committed to balancing clinical excellence, a professional and healing environment and community outreach programs to address various healthcare issues. Patient care in fiscal year 2025 was provided in more than 4,804 inpatient admissions and 116,429 outpatient visits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 9.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $177.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.