Jupiter Medical Center Foundation
Legal name: Jupiter Medical Center Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 650132406
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jupiter, FL, US
- Phone
- 561-263-5728
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $69,231,671
- Expenses
- $28,083,213
- Assets
- $216,913,601
- Liabilities
- $1,528,490
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AMIT RASTOGI MD MHCM (CURRENT JMC PRESIDENT / FORMER INTERIM JMCF PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- AMIT RASTOGI MD MHCM (CURRENT JMC PRESIDENT / FORMER INTERIM JMCF PRESIDENT): $2,236,730 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL LOFTUS (SVP & CFO (THRU DEC 2024)): $623,698 total reported compensation
- TRACI SIMONSEN CFRE LCSW (CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER): $479,973 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide high-quality, life-giving care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Jupiter medical center foundation, inc. Secures and deploys philanthropic resources that support clinical excellence, quality of care, and expanded access to health care services at jupiter medical center, inc. ("jmc") and its affiliates. During the year, the foundation provided $22m in grants to jmc for general program support. These resources help jmc respond to the evolving health care needs of the community through investments in patient-centered care, advanced technology, and modern facilities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 93% 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. 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: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 44.7%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 59.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.72; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 44.7% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $740K reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 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: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.