Robert Packer Hospital Auxiliary
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 231650350
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sayre, PA, USA
- Phone
- 5708874625
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, General
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $136,217
- Expenses
- $141,888
- Assets
- $564,922
- Liabilities
- $20,098
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOSEPH SAWYER (DIRECTOR - PRES/CEO RPH)
- KYLE MCDUFFEE (DIRECTOR - PRESIDENT)
- BETH HERBST (DIRECTOR - VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSEPH SAWYER (DIRECTOR - PRES/CEO RPH): $606,062 total reported compensation
- KYLE MCDUFFEE (DIRECTOR - PRESIDENT): $199,891 total reported compensation
- LEA SCOPELLITI (DIRECTOR - SECRETARY): $133,816 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the robert packer hospital auxiliary is to promote and advance the welfare of the robert packer hospital (rph). The connection (gift shop) is run by the robert packer hospital auxiliary and operates within the hospital.
What it reported doing in 2024
The robert packer auxiliary consists of all volunteers who help to support a variety of projects. The projects include supporting the house of hope, lifeline, and guthrie hospice; managing the tree for life project, making heart pillows for cardiac patients, scholarship program for volunteers and the deb noles scholarship for nursing students. The auxiliary raises money through various fundraising endeavors including hosting book sales throughout the year and through the operation of the robert packer hospital gift shop. The auxiliary has assisted in managing and staffing the gift shop for over 30 years. The proceeds from sales benefit auxiliary causes and the deb noles scholarship for nursing students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 49
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 15th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.98; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $142K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $606K · 7 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 29/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.