Columbus Regional Auxiliary
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581295777
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2012
- Forms available
- Form 990 2012
- Location
- Columbus, GA, USA
- Phone
- 7064944586
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $29,126
- Expenses
- $52,865
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of doctor's hospital auxiliary is to render service to doctor's hospital and its patients, through ways approved by the governing board of the hospital and to render service to the community. Members of the auxiliary volunteer in different departments throughout the organization and assist with various community activities on behalf of doctor's hospital, inc.
What it reported doing in 2012
The doctor's hospital auxiliary was established in 1976 for the purpose of rendering service to doctor's hospital and assist with various community activities on behalf of doctor's hospital.youth volunteersthe organization provides a youth volunteer program during the summer. Young people between the ages of 14-18 years old may participate in the youth volunteer program. This program is designed for responsible, mature teens who seek the opportunity to help others and who want to explore a health career. Youth volunteer duties require the same responsible dedication and commitment as adult volunteers. Youth volunteer duties are rewarding and valuable experiences provided in a stimulating setting in which young adults can grow and learn.scholarship programsdoctor's hospital auxiliary awards scholarships to individuals in medical related studies. During the year, the auxiliary awarded $12,100 in scholarships to three institutions for the benefit of three individuals.candidates for scholarships must provide a completed application, proof of acceptance into an accredited school, original transcripts which show at least a "c" average in previous academic work, and three signed letters of reference sent directly to the scholarship committee. Letters of reference may be from high school teachers, college professors and previous employers but not from personal friends or relatives.scholarship amounts vary and are awarded annually. Payments are made directly to the school and an account is established from which the student may draw for tuition, books, fees and uniforms.gift boxdoctor's hospital auxiliary staffs with volunteers and operates the gift shop in the hospital. This provides visitors a convenient place to purchase gifts for patients. Income from gift shop sales provides the auxiliary with the funds to finance the hospital and community projects to carry out its objective.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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: 83
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 17
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 90.7%; rating input score 91; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -81.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -31.1% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -74.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 14 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.