Eaton Community Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811913749
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charlotte, MI, USA
Phone
5176523228
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$283,224
Expenses
$368,887
Assets
$4,111,084
Liabilities
$17,869

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARBARA FULTON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KALLI BRADY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BARBARA FULTON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $95,382 total reported compensation
  • KALLI BRADY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $82,777 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Applying a systems approach to catalyzing improvements in the social determinants of health in eaton county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Healthcomm expanded its focus on food security in eaton county with collaborative partners that included the regional and local food banks, the local hospital and health department. The expansion of this program consisted of an additional set of smart, refrigerator lockers in a new community, and the development of an eaton county food locker advisory committee. Eaton community health (ech) partnered with charlotte public schools as part of our healthcomm initiative. The charlotte public schools collect community donations to support cancer patients at local sporting events. Those funds are provided to ech to purchase and deliver gas cards to healthcare providers throughout the county to be given to any eaton county resident undergoing treatment for cancer, providing support and access to care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 42.4%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.9%; rating input score 79; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 22nd 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: -30.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.14; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 42.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $156K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.