Brightpoint Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134118387
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
7186818700
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,582,607
Expenses
$72,103,367
Assets
$36,566,059
Liabilities
$23,730,687

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL D VITALE (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • KARAMCHAND RAMESHWAR (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF B)
  • ROBERT KELLY (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL D VITALE (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $918,370 total reported compensation
  • KARAMCHAND RAMESHWAR (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF B): $410,713 total reported compensation
  • EVAN ZUCKERMAN (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $389,741 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Brightpoint health drives dramatic improvements in the health of new yorkers. Brightpoint health delivers high quality, person centered, integrated care resulting in improved health outcomes for people, families, and communities challenged by health disparities caused by poverty, discrimination, and lack of access. Brightpoint provides medical, dental, behavioral health, and substance abuse services in all five boroughs of New York city.

What it reported doing in 2017

Operates diagnostic and treatment centers designated as federally qualified health centers. The majority of clients will be low-income persons who may have a history of substance abuse, may previously have been homeless, have histories of incarceration, etc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.5%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $53.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 82nd 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: Pass
    • 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: 0.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 41.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.5% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $62.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $918K · 28 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.7M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.