Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego - HRCSD On Point Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852650663
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
La Mesa, CA, USA
Phone
6199610527
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,374,667
Expenses
$1,860,157
Assets
$1,174,267
Liabilities
$274,517

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TARA STAMOS-BUESIG (Executive Dir.): $316,373 total reported compensation
  • AMY KNOX (Secretary/CFO): $182,429 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To spread awareness of the importance of harm reduction and to reduce stigma by educating, supporting, networking and providing harm-reduction services.

What it reported doing in 2023

A grant contract was awarded to the harm reduction coalition of san diego-hcrsd on point from the county of san diego to provide naloxone training, education, and distribution of naloxone and test strips to stakeholders, community based organizations, naloxone distribution partners and high risk populations in san diego county. Alongside these services, 16 vending machines have been placed throughout san diego county to offer 24 hour access to these trainings, educational materials and supplies by the organization (hrcsd on point) and agreements with partnering organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 112% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 88.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 95.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $316K · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.