Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943050247
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
5102729536
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,029,816
Expenses
$5,314,123
Assets
$7,238,737
Liabilities
$1,012,826

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Thu Quach (President)
  • Kaushal Challa (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Caballero (Executive Dir.): $209,768 total reported compensation
  • Ken Liang (Dir. of Finance): $156,443 total reported compensation
  • Jen Lee (Deputy Director): $149,284 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Aapcho is a national association representing community healthorganizations dedicated to promoting education, collaboration and leadershipthat supports increased access to quality, affordable health care for asian americans (aa)& native hawaiian/pacific islanders (nhpi)within the united states and the u.s. Affiliated pacific islands, primarily throughour member community health centers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Develops health care education materials and provides training forcommunity health care providers on current and emerging health issuesaffecting populations experiencing elevated disease burden, including asianamerican (aa), and native hawaiian/pacific islander (nhpi) communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.