Salem Hospital Auxiliary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931081113
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5038141938
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,090
Expenses
$156,677
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRIS ADAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • DANA WOLF (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KRIS ADAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • DANA WOLF (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KIMBERLY HEMENWAY (RECORDING SECRETARY)

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

Support salem health and other local community health services.

What it reported doing in 2016

Salem hospital auxiliary (the auxiliary) was established in 1971 to render services to salem health, a not-for profit 501(c)(3) community based hospital, and its patients. The primary activity of the auxiliary has been ongoing fundraisers that are held within the hospital such as books are fun, poinsettia sales and $6.00 sales. With the proceeds of these sales, the auxiliary supports the hospital with donations for purchases of equipment, scholarships for students pursuing medically related fields of studies and the activities of other community health service organizations whose mission statements are compatible with the mission statement of the hospital.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 24

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,096.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st 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: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 23.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.