The Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550809159
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Princeton, IL, USA
Phone
8158752999
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,636,405
Expenses
$5,359,288
Assets
$5,051,954
Liabilities
$1,532,367

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL SKOWRON (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • TED ROGALSKI (PRESIDENT)
  • KARISSA TURNER (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • PATRICIA SCHOU (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 12/2024))
  • TRACY WARNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF 07/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA SCHOU (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 12/2024)): $239,059 total reported compensation
  • CURT ZIMMERMAN (SR DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS SVCS & DEV): $187,334 total reported compensation
  • CRAIG HENKAUS (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $163,534 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Icahn is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation established in 2003 for the purposes of sharing resources, education, promoting efficiency and best practice and improving health care services for member critical access hospitals and their rural communities. Icahn, with 60 member hospitals, is an independent network governed by a nine-member board of directors.

What it reported doing in 2024

Icahn provides quality educational opportunities to member hospitals focusing on rural health issues and strategies for success through onsite meetings, videoconferencing, and web-based training.board education for hospitals including board basics, critical access hospital 101, 340b, cah finance, and other topics.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.5%; rating input score 77; 21st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $239K · 15 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 63 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 57 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.