Greater Philadelphia Health Action, Inc.
Legal name: Greater Philadelphia Health Action Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237082074
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Phone
- 1-888-296-GPHA (4742)
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $93,904,399
- Expenses
- $92,705,812
- Assets
- $105,714,271
- Liabilities
- $63,293,886
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
40 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- BRIAN CLARK (CEOExecutive Director): $635,296 total reported compensation
- JANET E YOUNG (Chief Medical Office): $429,358 total reported compensation
- SARAH LAI (Chief Health Ctr Admin): $371,780 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Greater Philadelphia Health Action, Inc.'s mission is to provide quality comprehensive medical, dental, behavioral health, pharmacy and child development services to meet the needs of a diverse population, regardless of ability to pay. We also show our support for the communities we serve through constant interaction in the form of health fairs, open houses and special events for our children, adults and seniors. GPHA was founded in 1970 as part of a movement to ensure that quality healthcare is consistently available in the community. Since that time, we have built a reputation as a leader in helping communities identify the health needs of their residents and developing quality medical and social services programs to address those needs. GPHA is also the largest non-hospital healthcare provider in the region, and we’re growing. We take pride in our ability and willingness to serve...
What it reported doing in 2024
Medical services to provide comprehensive quality care to a diverse under-served population in the city of Philadelphia, regardless of the patients ability to pay.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 52
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $635K · 40 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $574K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 31 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.