University of Maryland Medical System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522238893
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4103285770
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,138,400
Expenses
$5,661,832
Assets
$117,997,720
Liabilities
$7,027,126

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BERT W O' MALLEY MD (President and CEO UMMC)

Highest reported compensation

  • BERT W O' MALLEY MD (President and CEO UMMC): $2,016,315 total reported compensation
  • GEORGE A SPRINKEL (TREASURER): $843,249 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER CULP JD (DIRECTOR): $628,010 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Umms foundation, inc. Raises charitable funds to safeguard the future of health care excellence for university of Maryland medical system.

What it reported doing in 2024

University of Maryland medical system foundation, inc. (ummsf) raises charitable funds to safeguard the future of health care excellence for university of Maryland medical system (umms) through the development of charitable support. Ummsf helps umms remain a leading integrated health care delivery system. Established in march 2000, ummsf is building an endowment fund to safeguard the future of health care excellence at umms and is its central structure for fundraising, stewardship and endowment management. Ummsf provides support to umms for the construction and maintenace of umms facilities and other capital needs of its hospitals, to fill the gap when patients can not pay for drugs or cover the entire cost of care, and to support the development of clinical programs that are essential to the community. We provide community support and education and assist the umms hospitals to provide cutting edge care that would otherwise not be affordable.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.6%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 32
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 67%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.84; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.6% of revenue deployed · 32.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 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: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.