California Integrated Data Exchange

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471480312
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Emeryville, CA, USA
Phone
5106831309
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,406,025
Expenses
$19,851,137
Assets
$26,932,224
Liabilities
$31,572,534

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jean Fraser (CHAIRMAN & ceo)
  • DAVID WATSON (CEO (THRU 5/2016))

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID WATSON (CEO (THRU 5/2016)): $551,237 total reported compensation
  • Greg LeClaire (CFO & COO): $312,221 total reported compensation
  • jOHN lEE (cto): $281,639 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Facilitate the sharing of healthcare data among payers and providers to reduce the costs and increase the quality of health care services.

What it reported doing in 2015

Cal INDEX is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation developing a statewide, next-generation health information exchange (HIE). The comprehensive collection of electronic patient records will include clinical data from healthcare providers and health insurers. Cal INDEX will allow physicians, nurses and hospitals throughout the state to share patients' health information and will provide them with the tools to help them give their patients the safest, highest-quality care possible.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.17; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.1% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $551K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.