Hunters Point Biomonitoring Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 863077687
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4158595471
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $93,516
- Expenses
- $93,964
- Assets
- $569,097
- Liabilities
- $93,963
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AHIMSA PORTER SUMCHAI MD (CEO PI SECRETARY)
- NIKCOLE CUNNINGHAM (ACTING PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- AHIMSA PORTER SUMCHAI MD (CEO PI SECRETARY): $36,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Support & promote the community biomonitoring program & implement the toxic registry to Protect, Detect & Prevent exposures to environmental toxicants emanating from a Federal Superfund Site. (See Sched O)
What it reported doing in 2024
Funding Toxic Exposure Urinary Biomonitoring Screenings for very low income high risk residents is HP Biomonitorings signature program It launched as a Go Fund Me campaign in 2019 when the fiscally sponsored Hunters Point Community Biomonitoring Program first filed as a CCSF business entity. CalEPA October 2024 budget amendment created a line item for up to 100 tests available for reimbursement in 2025. 2024 Go FundMe campaign raised $194 used to cover testing in March and May 24 Dr. Ramona Tascoe received $500 for services rendered to homeless RV tenants sited on the contaminated shoreline of a Federal Superfund. Program was fully charitable, but was able to play a critical role in host of legal and administrative actions taken to (See Sched O)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 96
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.1%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -0.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.06; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 70.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.1% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $94K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.