Healthcare Foundation Northern Sonoma County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680474109
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Healdsburg, CA, USA
Phone
7074730583
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,439,183
Expenses
$1,443,102
Assets
$1,245,323
Liabilities
$24,999

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAMIREZ AMY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAMIREZ AMY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $169,566 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We connect people and resources to promote wellness in underserved communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

The healthcare foundation raises funds in support of underserved communities in our region, from northern santa rosa to the mendocino border. With a commitment to increasing health equity, we focus our grant support on equitable access to healthcare and mental health services. In 2025 we continued our support for local health clinics and grassroots community-based organizations that focus on low-income, vulnerable populations. We also continued to fund scholarships for bilingual, bicultural mental health professionals who agree to stay in our area and serve in clinics, schools, and nonprofits to address the extreme shortage of bilingual providers, and to improve community health.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 51st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.