Helios Behavioral Health

Legal name: Behavioral Health Workforce Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934041682
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pittsfield, MA, United States
Phone
6172909097
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$845,671
Expenses
$583,942
Assets
$186,618
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ross Lohr (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jessica Lyons (Director): $43,553 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to spearhead healthcare innovation by enhancing access to quality, culturally informed behavioral healthcare. We are expanding the behavioral health workforce through dynamic initiatives, ensuring that top-tier care is within reach for every community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Behavioral Health Workforce Training and Technical Assistance: BHWI's primary program provides workforce development training, clinical supervision support, and technical assistance to primary care practices integrating behavioral health services. In 2025, BHWI partnered with primary care organizations including Chelmsford Pediatrics, Lowell Community Health Center, and others to embed behavioral health clinicians into care teams, deliver training curricula for clinical staff, and provide ongoing consultation to improve the quality and accessibility of behavioral health services. Program activities included live training sessions, case consultation, competency-based curriculum development, and direct technical assistance to practice leadership. The program served patients and communities across Massachusetts and California, with a focus on underserved populations with limited access to specialty mental health and substance use services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 29
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.9%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 99.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 123.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 143.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 2 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.