Gwinnett Hospital System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581828486
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
Phone
6783125603
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,984,530
Expenses
$4,429,441
Assets
$24,807,615
Liabilities
$2,686,603

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

Leadership & pay

75 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBORAH MITCHAM BILBRO (BOARD MEMBER, NORTHSIDE GWINNETT CEO)
  • JASON CHANDLER (FOUNDATION PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY LEVENGOOD MD (BOARD MEMBER): $1,176,515 total reported compensation
  • DEBORAH MITCHAM BILBRO (BOARD MEMBER, NORTHSIDE GWINNETT CEO): $1,107,138 total reported compensation
  • JAY DENNARD (BOARD MEMBER): $729,362 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Gwinnett hospital system foundation is a not-for-profit charitable organization whose mission is to provide financial support to northside hospital, inc. For projects which meet community needs in gwinnett county. Focus is placed on programs that accelerate access to high quality healthcare in gwinnett.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation raises funds for the purpose of improving the quality of services provided by northside hospital in gwinnett county. Historically, the foundation has supported many of the hospital's gwinnett operations and programs, including neonatal intensive care, cancer treatment and detection, rehabilitation services, medical residency/education, women's programs, sports medicine, cardiology, scholarships for nursing, palliative care, and various allied health sciences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.2%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.6; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.9% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 65 of 69 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 75 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.