Hugh Lane Wellness Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821940719
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4129735053
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,955,226
Expenses
$5,157,626
Assets
$2,705,871
Liabilities
$401,619

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR STACY LANE (FOUNDER & BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH ROSSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH ROSSO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $148,899 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hugh lane foundation works to improve the health of lgbtq+ and HIV syndemic impacted communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hugh lane foundation works to improve the health of all of our lgbtq+ and HIV syndemic impacted communities through programming, direct service provision, and facilitating education and consultation that reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes for the populations we serve. Our work focuses on expanding access to healthcare for underserved, high risk sexual health communities, and removing systemic barriers that block lgbtq+ individuals and HIV syndemic impacted communities from attaining health equity. We strive to reduce and eliminate health disparities by providing access to: health services, resources, outreach, sti testing and prevention, education, and engaging programming to build community. When we work together to address social determinants of health, eliminate barriers to care, and support resiliency and joy for our communities, we can build healthy hearts and healthy minds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $110.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

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; 43rd 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; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -74.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.