Emory Johns Creek Hospital Auxiliary Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581529062
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Johns Creek, GA, USA
Phone
6787630973
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$68,412
Expenses
$69,587
Assets
$145,062
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Margery Jones (President - EJCH Auxiliary)
  • Walt Van Winkle (Past president - EJCH Auxiliary)
  • Eileen Parsons (Vice President - Membership)
  • Cathy Waite (President Elect 2027)
  • Sarah Gail Hytowitz (Vice President - Fundraisers)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ed Holt (Manager - Gift Shop): $12,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide volunteer hours throughout the hospital to enhance performance as it relates to servicing patients, visitors, and employees. Operate the hospital gift shop in a manner that provides goods and services to all users while generating funds for medically related scholarships. Use fundraisers and donations to support special hospital projects and objectives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Volunteers provide a minimum of 200 hours per year serving a variety of activities throughout the hospital. With more than 85 volunteers, this represents an excess of 17,000 hours annually. This equates to 8 1/2 employees.

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 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.7%; rating input score 93; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.08; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.