Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc

Legal name: Chinese-american Planning Council Home Attendant Program Inc

Overview

Mission

CPCHAP is well-respected for its ability to provide culturally and linguistically competent home care services for individuals who live in one of the five boroughs of New York City and who are medically disabled, elderly and/or physically disabled who might otherwise require institutionalization.

What it reported doing in 2024

Personal care program / consumer directed personal assistance program: to provide personal care services or consumer directed personal assistance services in the home to medicaid eligible patients who are medically disabled, aged and or physically handicapped who might otherwise require institutionalization. Cpchap serves about 460 personal care receipients over twelve months of operations and 1868 consumer directed personal assistance receipients over nine months operations. In addition, during fy 2025 cpchap served as an sfi facilitator for three months supporting 6,000 consumers, including the 1,868 consumer directed personal assistance recipients noted above.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133203211
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Headquarters
New York, NY, USA
Phone
(212) 219-8100
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Health Care

Official website

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -0.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $151.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $361K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 annual filings from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN SULLIVAN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $361,183 total reported compensation
  • LING MA (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER (OUTGOING)): $331,775 total reported compensation
  • WAYNE HO (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $330,576 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: FY2024.