Care Continuum Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043448475
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027375476
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$276,185
Expenses
$272,499
Assets
$381,779
Liabilities
$108,757

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ROSE MALJANIAN (CHAIRMAN OF)
  • LAUREL PICKERING (SECRETARY)
  • MARK DOGADALSKI (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The population health alliance (pha) is the industry's only multi stakeholder professional and trade association soley focused on population health. The organization has dozens of members representing stakeholders from across the health care eco system that seek to improve health outcomes, optimize medical and administrative spend and drive affordability. Through its robust advocacy, quality and research and education initiatives, the pha offers members a forum to advance shared learning and applied research to further innovation and establish best practices in the population health field. Visit http://www.populationhealthalliance.org to learn more.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pha managed a work groups dedicated to social determinants of healthand health equity; advancing primary care; integrated behavioral health; and medicaid quality and continuity of care. Each workgroup completed a deliverable such as an issue brief, tool or issue brief. The quality & research steering committee met quarterly and provided input to shaping and reviews of workgroup materials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -51.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.