Community Health Improvement Partners
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330496092
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8586097960
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,660,162
- Expenses
- $3,576,930
- Assets
- $2,620,012
- Liabilities
- $1,943,875
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANA RICHARDSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- DANA RICHARDSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $210,214 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of community health improvement partners is to advance sustainable solutions to priority health needs through collaboration and community engagement.
What it reported doing in 2025
Housing: independent living association (ila) / recovery residence association (rra): these prevention and early intervention programs conducted in coordination with the county of san diego hhsa behavioral health services work to mitigate homelessness, which is a persistent public health challenge in this county. These independent living homes that have achieved and maintain full membership in the ila and rra, are unlicensed privately owned homes, complexes and units that specifically address the evolving housing needs of persons with serious mental illness, substance abuse and co-occurring disorders. Ila and rra member homes serve as a low barrier, high quality environments that support recovery from mental health challenges. In addition, this model of shared housing also services the housing needs of priority populations that are commonly overlooked such as low-income seniors on a fixed income, transition age youth, homeless, and formerly incarcerated persons. Specifically, the chip ila model has been replicated successfully in fresno county and santa clara county.care act was effective january 1, 2023, as the state level, and was officially implemented in the county of san diego effective october 1, 2023. Care authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary care agreement or a court-ordered care plan that can include treatment, housing support, and other services for persons with untreated schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. San diego county is a pilot county and will launch the care court program on october 1, 2023, in collaboration with the superior court, the public defender, legal advocacy, contracted service providers, and community partners. The care court process entails the following steps: 1) referrals, 2) initial determination, 3) investigation and engagement, 4) establishing a care plan, and 5) connecting to services. Chip specifically works with step #5, so once a care plan is accepted by the superior court, county behavioral health services, and its network of community-based providers will engage identified individuals for whom a care plan has been established to connect to services including a housing plan (chip), behavioral health treatment, medication stabilization, and or social service and legal supports. Chip's specific role in support of this program is to seek collaboration with housing operators to explore partnership opportunities with the care court program, and the goal is to locate housing that are willing and eager to house individuals receiving services and financial support from the county of san diego's behavioral health services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 98% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.4%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $514.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.4% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 10 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $136K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.