Deaconess Union County Hospital

Legal name: Deaconess Union County Hospital Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862614124
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Morganfield, KY, US
Phone
270-389-5000
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,920,459
Expenses
$23,081,543
Assets
$52,297,916
Liabilities
$14,048,421

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN BRUMLEY (MEMBER): $389,919 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE JENKINS (MEMBER): $221,712 total reported compensation
  • AMBER N POWELL (CAO): $210,958 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Deaconess union county hospital offers a 24-hour emergency department, a hospital-based ambulance service and a full range of diagnostic services including lab, imaging, and mammography, as well physical therapy, cardiopulmonary care, and surgical services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Deaconess hospital union county is a critical access hospital in union county, ky. During fy 2025, deaconess union county hospital served 510 inpatients for a total of 3,247 inpatient days. Union county also provided 6,867 emergency room visits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most filed governance safeguards are in place and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.9%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: 25%; rating input score 25; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 37.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.27; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 52.9% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $390K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.2M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 34 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 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.