Jennings American Legion Hospital Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720445607
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Jennings, LA, USA
Phone
3376167100
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,914,569
Expenses
$991,894
Assets
$39,309,430
Liabilities
$687,377

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE BERRY (Director): $40,700 total reported compensation
  • DALE LANDRY (Director): $12,250 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD ARCENEAUX (Director): $12,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Healthcare services

What it reported doing in 2023

Jennings american legion hospital ("jalh") entered into a lease agreement with ochsner american legion hospital, llc. ("oalh") a Louisiana limited liability company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of lafayette general health system, inc. D/b/a ochsner lafayette general (olg), a Louisiana nonprofit corporation. Oalh seamlessly continued the mission of jalh by assuming the management and operations of jalh's hospital on april 1, 2022. This made the hospital part of olg's regional network of facilities.the intent of this arrangement is to provide financial stability and long-term viability of the hospital for the benefit of the residents of the city of jennings and jefferson davis parish. This enables better care to be delivered efficiently and cost-effectively, and it ensures continued operation and access to hospital and emergency care.jalh leased to oalh the hospital buildings and fixtures. The lease included all the movable property, such as equipment, machinery, computers and software equipment. It also included all inventory, supplies, and pharmaceuticals. The initial term of the lease will be ten years with opportunities to renew. At the termination of the lease, the property will revert to jalh.as part of this lease agreement, jalh assigned to oalh its contracts, leases, permits, and licenses so that oalh could operate the facility. Jalh also assigned to oalh its accounts receivable for services rendered in order to facilitate the collection of the bills. Oalh also assumed the accounts payable for materials, services, and supplies. There is no issue with private inurement since olg is a nonprofit hospital continuing the same mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 19
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.5%; rating input score 9
  • Program expense ratio: 41.1%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 39.63; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.5% of revenue deployed · 41.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $408K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.