Valley View Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731664673
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Glenwood Springs, CO, USA
Phone
9703846620
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,619,784
Expenses
$1,087,093
Assets
$8,925,494
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN STELZRIEDE (PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE KAUFMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STACEY GAVRELL (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACEY GAVRELL (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $306,376 total reported compensation
  • JULIE KAUFMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $124,382 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To accelerate excellence in health care at valley view hospital through philanthropy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation, operating as a department of valley view hospital, raised funds to support program and capital needs of its supported organization, valley view hospital association, a 501(c)(3) organization. In 2025, the foundation raised and distributed funds for the calaway-young cancer center, advanced medical technology, nursing, and other projects. The foundation raised $1,148,227 in 2025. The foundation also received $2,700 in donations of services in support of the organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th 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: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 45th 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.21; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $306K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.