HealthImpact

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820570413
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108328400
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,434,249
Expenses
$1,463,781
Assets
$686,308
Liabilities
$252,920

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Garrett Chan (President & CEO)
  • Debra Bakerjian (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Garrett Chan (President & CEO): $224,941 total reported compensation
  • Edward Burns (Dir of Strat Initv): $144,259 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To shape health care through workforce strategy, stakeholder convening, and policy advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Building Educational Capacity: HI leads the effort to build educational capacity through programs such as the Centralized Clinical Placement System, Bay Area and Los Angeles Resource Centers, and Clinical Faculty Development. HI is one of the founding organizations for a national initiative, National Education Progression in Nursing, to promote and build educational capacity to advance nurses to higher degrees. HI? s California Simulation Alliance is a leader in development of simulation educators, having trained over 2,500 simulation faculty, utilizing courses with an interprofessional focus that are designed for all types of learners such as academic faculty, healthcare facility educators, and simulation operations personnel.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; 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: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.8%; rating input score 52; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.