Yavapai Regional Medical Center Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861038463
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
9287715691
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,460,958
Expenses
$2,700,237
Assets
$5,083,529
Liabilities
$146,026

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY V TORRES MD (EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBER): $1,040,100 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW RICE (CFO): $322,173 total reported compensation
  • JOHN D GOODENOW (BOARD MEMBER/CPO (THRU 1/30/25)): $239,570 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The yavapai regional medical center foundation provides the vehicle for donors to express philanthropy and touch all the people of our communities. The foundation develops funds through inspired donor involvement in order to ensure yrmc's ability to meet ongoing healthcare needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The yavapai regional medical center foundation was established to support and guide all of yrmc's fund-raising and development programs. Through a variety of means, the foundation assists funding advances in healthcare and provides yrmc's valued supporters with a structured venue for giving. The foundation is led by a board of directors and is designated to accomplish goals that include: supporting yrmc and its mission, facilities and programs; planning and implementing fund-raising and development efforts; supporting yrmc's current operations and future growth.in fiscal year 2025, grants provided by the foundation to yrmc were utilized to assist in funding a variety of initiatives at the hospital, including assistance in the day-to-day operations of the hospital in providing healthcare services to the community.

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 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $358.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 82.4%; rating input score 82; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -9.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.3% of revenue deployed · 68.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 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: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 335 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.