California Coverage & Health Initiatives

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474034471
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164049442
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,118,763
Expenses
$1,086,464
Assets
$1,511,195
Liabilities
$2,015,811

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK DIEL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK DIEL (CEO): $192,139 total reported compensation
  • ALEXIS HEATON (BOARD MEMBER): $106,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cchi's mission is to improve the health and well-being of California children and families by supporting its members in meeting the needs of thier communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025, the organization successfully completed a multi-year initiative funded by the centers for medicare and medicaid services (cms), totaling $1,500,000 over the period july 2022 through 2025. This project supported the organization's efforts to enhance healthcare access and improve outcomes within the communities served.in addition, the organization secured and utilized significant grant funding to expand its programs and services, including $500,000 from the wellness foundation and $2,000,000 from the California endowment to support a two-year project focused on advancing community health initiatives.the organization also secured an additional multi-year grant from the centers for medicare and medicaid services totaling $2,996,776, further strengthening its capacity to deliver and expand healthcare programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd 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: 92.5%; rating input score 92; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th 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: 2.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.33; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 71% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $772K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.