WVU Medicine Princeton Community Hospital

Legal name: Princeton Community Hospital Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550483245
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Princeton, WV, US
Phone
304-487-7000
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$326,410,729
Expenses
$323,653,375
Assets
$153,831,132
Liabilities
$131,198,233

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Bowling (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Weitzel (Physician): $1,131,963 total reported compensation
  • Mark Lenter (Physician): $1,076,191 total reported compensation
  • Joseph Cutrone (Physician): $1,010,634 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 improve the health of the communities we serve through high-quality, compassionate care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Princeton Community Hospital Association offers convenient primary care clinics across the region, providing expert care for patients of all ages. Whether scheduling a routine checkup or managing a chronic condition, you can trust our providers with your familys health. In 2024, Princeton Community Hospital Association had 21,111 internal medicine visits and 28,392 family mediicne visits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st 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: 75.4%; rating input score 75; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $267.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $16.2M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 44 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.