Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville Fo

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472893430
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madisonville, KY, USA
Phone
2703266133
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$666,490
Expenses
$532,024
Assets
$3,503,437
Liabilities
$364,403

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alisa Coleman (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Ashby (VP of Finance until Feb): $322,366 total reported compensation
  • Valarie Howard-Chief Financial (Officer as of Jan & Asst Treas): $146,197 total reported compensation
  • Ashley Galvan (Assistant Secretary): $106,126 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Rooted in a tradition of Christian service, Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville expands access to high quality healthcare delivered with a compassionate and nurturing spirit to all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Baptist Health Deaconess Maidsonville Foundation, Inc. operates to assist, advance, strengthen & support Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville, Inc. in its mission and ministry of continuing the Christian heritage of service by enhancing the health of the people and communities served. The Foundation operates to encourage, solicit and receive donations, bequests, gifts and benefactions made to or for the benefit of Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville, Inc. Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville Foundation is operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and to carry out the purpose of Baptist Health Deaconess Madisonville, Inc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.6%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 52.8%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 20.2%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.59; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.6% of revenue deployed · 52.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $281K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $322K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.