Bucks County Health Improvement Partners
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232862339
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Newtown, PA, USA
- Phone
- 2157102201
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,301,395
- Expenses
- $1,275,636
- Assets
- $758,926
- Liabilities
- $114,125
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KIMBERLY M PERMAR BS MA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KIMBERLY M PERMAR BS MA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $128,752 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose or mission is to provide a leadership role in bucks county through a collaborative approach to improve the health status of the community. Bchip takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem of healthcare access for low-income, uninsued individuals and families through the following: 1)identify and understand need at the community level, 2)deliver health promotion and prevention programs that help enable the residents of bucks county to live healthier lives, 3)convene multiple organizations that care about bucks county to address the needs of its most vulnerable residents. Bchip envisions a bucks county that takes a proactive, coherent, unified approach to improving the health of our community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Bchip continues to support its mission to address gaps in healthcare in bucks county. The programs remain fluid as the needs of the community change. Current initiatives include a county-wide smoking cessation program advance care planning program and immunization programs for vulnerable and at-risk populations. Additionally, it convenes with stakeholders to work collaboratively to meet the health needs of the community, including leaders of skilled nursing faciltities, to form the long-term care partnership.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $38.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: 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: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $969K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 17 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.