Hlth Impact Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833202575
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
3478710534
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$308,874
Expenses
$714,394
Assets
$758,779
Liabilities
$44,605

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANNA GUINEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANNA GUINEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $234,404 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hlth foundation develops, supports, and funds initiatives to advance health equity, access, and transformation. Our mission is to foster positive and lasting changes for those who are dedicated to improving health, lowering costs and advancing the industry through innovation and collaboration.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization relies on introductions to healthcare and healthcare-related professionals, organizations, and businesses who attend conferences and events produced by hlth llc to identify potential donors. As a result of these introductions, hlth foundation will solicit donations to specific non-profit organizations that further hlth foundation's mission and is relevant to the donor. Hlth foundation solicits general donations from donors for distributions to non-profit organizations that hlth foundation will then select through an application process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 19%; rating input score 19
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 10.5%; rating input score 10; 38th 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; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -131.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44% of revenue deployed · 19% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $136K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.