Health Education Assessment and Leadership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263990559
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4045647749
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,516,655
Expenses
$3,425,015
Assets
$1,067,782
Liabilities
$527,511

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Verneda Bachus Curry (Chief Executive Office)

Highest reported compensation

  • Danielle Whittaker (Pediatrician): $174,990 total reported compensation
  • Richardson Desmangles (Nurse Practioner): $125,000 total reported compensation
  • Verneda Bachus Curry (Chief Executive Office): $96,415 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization provides health, education and medical services to at risk and underserved citizens of the inner City of Atlanta, Georgia area. The organization also educates the public on the advantages of health awareness and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization was organized to provide health, education and health services to undeserved populations and to assess the needs of the community and accordingly build leaders from within those communities through training and supportive programs, and to engage in any lawful act or activity for which an organization under the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code (The Code). The corporation provides comprehensive primary health care to area residents, with particular care for the social-economically disadvantaged.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 81% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 2.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.