Washington Regional Medical Center Auxiliary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710503767
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fayetteville, AR, USA
Phone
4799576060
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Hospital, General

Reported finances

Revenue
$137,308
Expenses
$162,129
Assets
$206,547
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Melissa Wick (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • VICKIE MURRAY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CAROL HAWKINS (TREASURER)
  • FRAN SABBE (SHOP TREASURER)
  • Melissa Wick (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization was formed to promote and to advocate the welfare of the medical center through in-service projects and fund-raising activities. The auxiliary has in-service projects that occur each year. These projects are performed to make the patients and visitors have the most comfortable stay possible while in the hospital.

What it reported doing in 2024

Patient activities in 2024 included approximately $13,045 in special gifts to wrmc patients and children. These gifts included $533 for wheelchairs, $7,586 for heart pillows for open heart patients, $473 for patient tray favors, $222 for nicu luncheon, $1,277 for adopt a family program, $33 for pt department. Additionally, the auxiliary made donations equal to $2,921 to outside organizations. These gifts included $2,574 to beautiful lives, $100 to community blood centers of the ozarks, $247 for gift basket donations for various organizational meetings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.6%; rating input score 96; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $123K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.