Greater Health Now

Legal name: Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812995297
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kennewick, WA, US
Phone
509-567-5317
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,540,902
Expenses
$7,698,584
Assets
$70,929,688
Liabilities
$1,587,960

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN GIBBONS (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLIE STAHLNECKER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RHONDA HAUFF (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON BROWN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • HAYDEE HILL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $243,448 total reported compensation
  • SHARON BROWN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $236,539 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA BETTS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $190,700 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Building vibrant and healthy communities through community-led collaboration.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is designated an accountable community of health (ach) by the health care authority (hca). The state of Washington's health care authority, the agency overseeing all nine statewide achs, has developed the following key functions of an ach; 1. Select and monitor medicaid demonstration transformation projects and ensure that the projects are successful. 2. Serve as the single point of accountability for transformation projects. 3. Be a defined legal entity in order to meet the requirements of the centers for medicare and medicaid services (cms). 4. Have a governance structure that is multi-sector, has balanced engagement between health care systems and social determinants, is transparent, and demonstrates effective decision making processes. 5. Demonstrate regional partnerships through letters of understanding guided by yearly contracts with the hca, achs were required to develop and implement a regional health improvment plan, and implement at least one regional health improvement project as a pilot project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.8%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 74.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.21; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 24.8% of revenue deployed · 73.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $243K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $291K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 34 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.