Shadyside Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251290546
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4126236602
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,846,704
Expenses
$3,127,622
Assets
$130,580,696
Liabilities
$2,064,344

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

Leadership & pay

62 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER MARCH (ED/SECRETARY): $170,594 total reported compensation
  • LOUISE R BROWN (SENIOR ADVISOR (UNTIL 06/24)): $167,891 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 raise funds for the benefit of upmc-presbyterian/shadyside. The funds raised are used to further improve and advance the science or art of healthcare delivery and assist in the advancement of medical education and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Each year the foundation puts out a call for grant requests from personnel at upmc shadyside. Of 70 requests for funding that were submitted, 56 were approved. Four highlighted projects include: a street medicine consult service at upmc shadyside, upmc prostate cancer clinic outreach program, clinical education residency program: developing the next generation of future nurse educators, and a research project to evaluate green light therapy for pain management for surgery patients.additional projects include the diabetes education scholarship, which provides medications, supplies, and counseling. The shadyside hospital improvement model provides salaries for two improvement specialists who work with the hospital to make improvements for patient safety and care.since 1975, our volunteer board has successfully stewarded the gifts of general donors, putting their dollars to work to help create a world-renowned hospital that makes our community strong. Supporting projects for quality care, education, and research that lie beyond the hospital's normal operating budget, the shadyside hospital foundation changes lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 98.3%; rating input score 98; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 68.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 41.75; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 59 of 60 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 62 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 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: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.