Scottsdale Institute
Legal name: Scottsdale Informatics Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411915862
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Maple Grove, MN, USA
- Phone
- 7637107089
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,582,739
- Expenses
- $2,682,745
- Assets
- $2,713,245
- Liabilities
- $1,277,927
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JANET GUPTILL (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JANET GUPTILL (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $430,000 total reported compensation
- DONALD WEGMILLER (CHAIRMAN): $117,500 total reported compensation
- TOM SADVARY (VICE CHAIRMAN): $60,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Inspire and convene thought-leading Member health systems and their partners to leverage information and technology to create effective, affordable and equitable healthcare centered on whole person care. Providing overall direction to our purpose, planning and activities, SI’s Executive Committee & Board of Directors have been indispensable from the beginning. The Board of Directors, tasked with providing more strategic direction, meets annually to ensure our guiding principles, mission, values and code of conduct are being met. Then, as a subset of the Board, our Executive Committee meets monthly to offer more tactical support, providing guidance on programming direction and faculty referrals alongside feedback on SI events to continue to shape and refine our offerings. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educational opportunities including in-person and virtual conferences, summits, dialogue calls, and affinity group collaboration sites to meet, discuss and promote improvements in healthcare delivery through information technology. 875 individuals attended 34 dialogue calls; 398 individuals attended the ten in-person summits, annual conference, and site-visits we organized; and almost 13,000 individuals participated in 83 teleconferences from among our 62 member organizations, 17 corporate sponsors and 3 strategic partners, and other industry leaders.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 58
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.3%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 94.3% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 18 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $430K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $655K reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.