University Physicians Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341202744
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2168447531
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Reported finances

Revenue
$630,881
Expenses
$152,524
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide educational, research and professional medical services to the general population and the indigent of northeast Ohio at several locations.

What it reported doing in 2011

University physicians, inc. (upi) continues to maintain and provide assistance for select academic, scholarly and research-oriented activities of the associated physicians and staff. Medical services provided have all been transferred to uhmg. Upi support of educational, research and philanthropic endeavors are example of its continuing commitment to its not for profit status.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 75.8%; rating input score 98; 98th 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: 31%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 204.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $29K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.