Cuyahoga Health Access Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271217221
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2166966900
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,604
Expenses
$109,294
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GIESELLE GREENE (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PHILIP MAZANEC (DIRECTOR): $254,771 total reported compensation
  • LISA ANDERSON (DIRECTOR): $179,200 total reported compensation
  • MARIO FRANCO (DIRECTOR): $108,733 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To transform cuyahoga county into a model of health and wellness by connecting individuals to access to care

What it reported doing in 2018

Cuyahoga health access partnership (chap) developed the access plan model and supporting technological infrastructure for use among all partner organizations. All partner organizations agreed to standard enrollment practices to help connect uninsured adults to the health care services they need at primary and specialty care sites. Chap's technological investments allow a patient to be enrolled in chap through a community-wide standard financial clearance interview tool, which is then available to all partner organizations using the system. Once a patient is treated at a primary care site and then referred for specialty care, the patient can be seen in the hospital setting without completing a duplicate financial clearance interview. Chap used the initial seed money from partner organizations and local foundations to support the development of the access plan, hire staff, and professionalize the organization's operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 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: 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: -310.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $76K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.