Cchc Healthcare College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
883497843
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Phone
8182652230
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,169,929
Expenses
$434,022
Assets
$532,232
Liabilities
$211,521

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID LONTOK (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID LONTOK (PRESIDENT & CEO): $462,648 total reported compensation
  • FLORA POLADYAN (CHAIR): $245,511 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER SMITH (SECRETARY): $234,900 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 organization mission is to foster and educate a diverse community of medical assistant students and advance medical knowledge in a dynamic and collaborative environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cchc healthcare college provides educational services and programs to low-income and underserved populations to earn medical certifications for employment in the healthcare industry. In 2024, there were 19 students. We teach only one program, the medical assisting program, which aims for students to attain their ma certification and secure employment at cchc. The ma program can accommodate up to 15 students at a time for a 9-month program that begins and ends every 9 months.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.4%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 62.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 93.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.4% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $391K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $463K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.