Civitas Networks for Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
451754340
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sanford, NC, USA
Phone
2072728147
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,053,581
Expenses
$3,152,973
Assets
$3,006,358
Liabilities
$556,654

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA BARI (CEO THRU APRIL 2025)
  • JOLIE RITZO (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOLIE RITZO (CEO): $248,030 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA LITTLE (CHIEF OPERATING AND PROGRAMS OFFICER): $232,603 total reported compensation
  • LISA BARI (CEO THRU APRIL 2025): $158,978 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Civitas networks for health is the leading voice and convener for organizations working to use data to improve health in communities across the country. By bringing together local implementers - health information exchanges (hies), emerging health data utilities (hdus), community information exchanges (cies), regional health improvement collaboratives (rhics), all payer claims databases (apcds), quality improvement organizations (qios), and other multistakeholder groups - we foster data-driven collaboration that creates national impact while staying rooted in local realities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Patient centered-data home: civitas networks for health (civitas) supports patient centered data home- a member-led initiative that is a scalable, cost-effective model that connects health information exchanges (hies) nationwide. Pcdh ensures that patient health information follows individuals wherever they seek care, improving outcomes and supporting real-time, whole-person care coordination. The patient centered data home (pcdh) is a nationally recognized approach to linking patient information across state and regional lines. Pcdh uses simple but powerful triggering alerts (based on where care occurs) to notify health care providers when a patient receives care outside their "home" hie region - and facilitates real-time data sharing across trusted hie networks. Demographic data modernization (demo) initiative: civitas networks for health (civitas) supports this program to improve existing demographic data standards so health care organizations can more accurately identify disparities and deliver culturally responsive care. This initiative refines and expands demographic questions and response options proposed by ahip's health equity workgroup through a multiyear, stakeholderdriven process. In the initial phase, civitas convened diverse stakeholders in a series of national focus groups to review questions and response choices across domains including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex, gender, relationship status, pronouns, military experience, disability status, preferred language, and spiritual beliefs. The overarching goal is to modernize national demographic data content and exchange standards so they are culturally sensitive, appropriately granular, and aligned across stakeholders. Subsequent phases have included psychometric testing of the revised data elements and advancing them through hl7's standards development process. Health data utility (hdu) capability model: developed by the consortium for state and regional interoperability (csri) with input from civitas leaders, members, and industry contributors, this model offers a stakeholder-driven framework for evaluating the capabilities and maturity of hdus that deliver health data and analytics services across various sectors in the u.s. In partnership with csri, civitas supports the development and dissemination of the model through coordinating public comment periods and facilitating listening sessions to gather feedback on the current model. These initiatives underscore the importance of the hdu model, as a vital element in modernizing and integrating health information systems, for civitas members, public health officials, government entities, researchers, and other health care partners. State health technology commons: civitas networks for health (civitas) supports the state health technology commons (the commons) by fostering cross-state agency and community partnerships to implement strategies, policies, and technologies that advance health information interoperability and reusable infrastructure. The commons brings together state health it leaders from various government agencies and creates a neutral forum, which will provide collaborative peer-to-peer learning and general technical assistance. It also enables the sharing of new and relevant national policies, trends, and resources and how they impact states while enhancing awareness among federal, state, and community partners, including civitas members. Public health data landscape assessment: with support from the robert wood johnson foundation (rwjf), civitas leads this program assessing the impact of removing federal webpages (including cdc datasets and guidance) on public health research, policy, and operations. Civitas members and the state health technology commons were surveyed about their ability to access and use data, alternative resources relied upon, and effects on communication and research capacity. Survey results, other findings, and key recommendations will be published in early 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -3.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $248K · 17 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $446K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.