Central California Asthma Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453599201
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5592724874
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,407,981
Expenses
$7,252,118
Assets
$3,703,274
Liabilities
$539,467

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TIM TYNER (EXECUTIVE DI): $218,726 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN HAMILTON (CO-EXECUTIVE): $149,988 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Health research program is dedicated to understanding the environmental and physiological factors influencing asthma, with a particular focus on under- served, low-income communities. To support this work, we conduct thorough sample collection, indluding hair, blood, and teeth samples, as well as physical measurements such as height and weight from individuals diagnosed with asthma. Additionally, the program explores the health impacts of household energy sources by offering eligible participants the replacement of gas appliances, including stoves and range hoods, with electric alternatives. This initiative aims to reduce indoor air pollution and enhance respiratory health, providing valuable insights into the benefits of cleaner household energy sources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 29% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.