Carver County Health Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320182075
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Chaska, MN, USA
Phone
6513428093
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Community Health Systems

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$2,194
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JONATHAN LARSON (BOARD CHAIR)
  • SUE DEGOLIER (BOARD SECRETARY)
  • LYNN AYERS (BOARD MEMBER)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the carver county health partnership (cchp) is to improve the health and well-being of all who live in carver county by building "communities for a lifetime". The cchp is a collaborative effort between community leaders, residents, local businesses, nonprofits, governmental agencies, schools and faith communities to make carver county a healthy place to live and work. Our vision is that "carver county will be the healthiest county in the united states".

What it reported doing in 2014

Presidents network roundtable - cchp co-sponsored the presidents network roundtable, working closely with the waconia chamber of commerce and a larger partnership that included the mn department of health, centers for disease control, ymca, and chamber of commerce. The purpose of the roundtable was to expand the number of business leaders in the community committed to driving down the costs of health care and improving the overall health of employees and communities. The roundtable provided specific practices and policy-oriented strategies that could be adopted by local ceos.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.