Rappahannock General Hospital Auxiliary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541057117
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Kilmarnock, VA, USA
Phone
8044358575
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,370
Expenses
$3,027
Assets
$47,765

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOAN GRAVATT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOAN GRAVATT (PRESIDENT)
  • REBECCA NUNN (VICE PRESIDE)
  • VIRGINIA CRAIG (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rappahannock general hospital auxiliary serves patients and hospital personnel as non-medical volunteers within the hospital premises, such as assistance in guiding patients to appointments. The auxiliary also operates a gift shop within the hospital, along with fund raising activities and provides lifeline remote emergency medical call systems to the community. The proceeds of all activities are donated to the hospital annually for the purchase of needed medical equipment.

What it reported doing in 2016

The organization provides volunteers to assist the local hospital in non- medical services to improve comfort and attention patients receive during their hospital stay. The auxiliary provided over 12,000 volunteer hours during the year in support of this purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.3%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 89.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.78; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -89.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.6% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.