The Rex Healthcare Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
566052117
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9197844447
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,413,980
Expenses
$1,298,119
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERNEST L BOVIO JR (PRESIDENT)
  • Kirsten S Riggs (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SYLVIA D HACKETT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WESLEY A BURKS MD (DIRECTOR): $2,462,222 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN W BURRISS (DIRECTOR): $1,477,456 total reported compensation
  • ERNEST L BOVIO JR (PRESIDENT): $919,303 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide opportunities for our community to invest resources in the excellent work of unc rex healthcare. The core activities through which the foundation fulfills this mission include: advocacy, education, program development, fundraising, strategic partnerships and donor engagement.

What it reported doing in 2021

The rex healthcare foundation supports unc rex hospital through a variety of patient assistance programs, assists in upgrading facilities and acquiring the medical equipment necessary to continue excellent healthcare services. These programs include a mobile mammography unit that travels the region providing free mammography screening services to underserved patients, patient assistance through the rex cancer center angel fund, nursing education, blanket warmers, patient transportation to treatment and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.8%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 73.3%; rating input score 73; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.2%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 115.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.8% of revenue deployed · 56.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $731K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.5M · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.