Healthy Lakewood Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832537125
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lakewood, OH, USA
Phone
2162066749
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,863,014
Expenses
$895,950
Assets
$29,925,950
Liabilities
$3,003

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REBECCA BAAS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATE INGERSOLL (EXECUTIVE DI): $124,346 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advance programs, policies and practices that inspire a lakewood community in which health and wellness are reflected in all aspects of life.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, the healthy lakewood foundation (hlf) distributed 536,405 through its three established grant programs: community, neighborhood opportunity, and systems. Hlf laid the groundwork for its next chapter while continuing to support organizations serving lakewood residents. Hlf developed a comprehensive strategic plan through 2029 and created frameworks for grantmaking, learning, and evaluation - all designed to align operations with equity goals. The strategic plan, grantmaking framework, and learning and evaluation framework were approved by the board of directors at its november meeting. Over 70 lakewood residents and community partners gathered at cove community center in september for hlf's annual community meeting. Guest speaker annette iwamoto, director of the cuyahoga county human services chamber, offered invaluable insights into how federal policy changes and funding uncertainties are affecting local nonprofits. Attendees participated in facilitated discussions about the challenges facing human services organizations and how collaboration can strengthen our community's safety net. Hlf actively participated in key collaborative efforts, including the city of lakewood's community health action team, the newly formed lakewood human services network, and the greater cleveland funders collaborative. These partnerships help us better understand both community needs and the challenges faced by local human services organizations. Hlf also partnered with local groups to revise the lakewood community resource guide to raise awareness of community programs and available support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 51.9%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.4; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.9% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $769K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 23 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.