The Medical Center Foundation Inc Dba the Northeast Georgia Health System Foun

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581694820
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Gainesville, GA, USA
Phone
7702195888
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,087,794
Expenses
$10,316,999
Assets
$55,479,332
Liabilities
$9,776,517

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATALIE CHALLEN (MEMBER - AUXILIARY PRESIDENT)
  • MATT HANLEY (PRESIDENT & CEO (BEGIN 3/25))
  • CAROL BURRELL (PRESIDENT & CEO (ENDED 5/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROL BURRELL (PRESIDENT & CEO (ENDED 5/25)): $2,489,525 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL COVERT (FORMER CHIEF OPERAT. OFFICER): $1,811,122 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN D STEINES (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $1,274,768 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 medical center foundation, inc., also known as the nghs foundation, is an affiliate of northeast Georgia health system (nghs) and is on a mission of improving the health of the community in all we do. Nghs is a not-for-profit organization supported by the nghs foundation's fundraising activities and is the parent company for the following affiliates:- northeast Georgia medical center, inc. (gainesville and braselton campuses)- northeast Georgia medical center barrow- northeast Georgia medical center lumpkin- northeast Georgia medical center habersham- the medical center foundation, inc. (nghs foundation)- northeast Georgia physicians group- Georgia heart institute

What it reported doing in 2024

As a part of northeast Georgia health system, the medical center foundation serves more than a million people across the region. **see schedule o for program service accomplishments continuation**

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.9%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: 4.1%; rating input score 4; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th 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: -2.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.38; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.9% of revenue deployed · 33.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.5M · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $228K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 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: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 7 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 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.