Chap
Legal name: Community Health Access Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341884022
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Mansfield, Ohio, USA
- Phone
- 419-526-CHAP
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $776,078
- Expenses
- $797,738
- Assets
- $686,209
- Liabilities
- $229,041
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Martin Hanawalt (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Nancy Hartman (Executive Dir.): $60,440 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CHAP connects individuals and families with a Community Health Worker who listens, coordinates support, and walks alongside them every step of the way.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Community Health Access Project CHAP HUB is a nationally recognized pathways community hub model. The Pathways Community Hub Model is utilized from infancy to adulthood to assure accountable outreach to at risk individuals, documenting reduced risk, improved outcomes and reduced cost. As the local hub, CHAP covers Richland, Ashland, Crawford, Huron, Morrow and Knox counties. The CHAP HUB serves as the central networking center for a team of community care coordination agencies CCAS. These local agencies deploy culturally connected community health workers CHWs who reach out and engage individuals to help identify specific health, social and behavioral health risk factors. The work of the CHAP HUB network of local agencies assures focus on our communities most at risk populations and through evidence based and outcome focused steps, we assure individuals connect to primary care and prevention services, behavioral health, housing, food, clothing, adult education and employment. Community Empowerment - In this model of community care coordination, an individual from within the community served provides a culturally relevant link to existing health and social services. Employment, college training, and support services are provided to the community care coordinator so that the community and its residents become the agents for change. Social Advocacy - Community health workers open the door for necessary services to reach clients, who are otherwise isolated due to cultural, geographic and economic barriers. Care coordination services do not duplicate, but facilitate and strengthen existing community resources. Through home visits, the care coordinator serves as an ongoing resource to neighborhood families, identifying individual needs and providing connections to appropriate services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 60% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: -2.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $602K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.