The Memorial Health System Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841576338
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7193654483
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,877,081
Expenses
$1,168,200
Assets
$5,367,421
Liabilities
$28,241

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LONNIE CRAMER (CEO, EX-OFFICIO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATE MAUIRRO (EXEC. DIR. FOUNDATION): $208,490 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe memorial health system foundation supports and advances uchmhs and its affiliated nonprofit healthcare entities by identifying charitable needs, fostering community and philanthropic engagement, and responsibly receiving, managing, and distributing contributions in alignment with donor intent. Through these activities, the foundation furthers the charitable, educational, and scientific purposes of uchmhs and strengthens healthcare services in southern Colorado.

What it reported doing in 2024

Patient assistance, service line support, and employee education -the foundation provides financial assistance to ensure that patients facing economic hardship can access essential medical care. In fy25, assistance was provided to 587 patients to support continuity of treatment. The foundation also funded critical service line needs, including clinical equipment, technology, and programmatic enhancements that improve patient care across the memorial health system. Additionally, the foundation supported workforce development through continuing education and scholarships for 33 uchealth employees in southern Colorado and for students enrolled in the uchealth memorial hospital school of radiologic technology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.2%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 76.6%; rating input score 77; 34th 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: 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: 37.8%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.59; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.2% of revenue deployed · 56% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $654K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.