Hyperbaric Centers of Washington

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463926521
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Yakima, WA, USA
Phone
5098957931
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rehabilitative Medical Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,610
Expenses
$185,270
Assets
$542,528
Liabilities
$5,995

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD S WILKINSON MD (PRESIDENT/MEDICAL DIRECTOR)
  • LISA KANELOPOULOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA KANELOPOULOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $17,523 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD S WILKINSON MD (PRESIDENT/MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $6,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy services to a broad spectrum of patients at reasonable fees.

What it reported doing in 2017

Administration: the administration of hcw is really 3-fold. The medical director is responsible for ensuring all patients who have treatment at our facility are candidates for the pressurized environment. The medical director also maintains contact with all hcw staff in regards to further patient care, as needed, continuing education, and safety. The executive director (ed) is responsible for human resources, a/r and a/p, payroll and taxes, communications with the board, advertising, day-to-day operations, and working with patients, including patient orientations. In working with patients, the ed works from the start to educate them regarding their treatment, secure financial aid if necessary, ensure compliance with hcw rules and regulations, and oversee scheduling of treatments. The ed works to promote professional relationships with other providers and foundations. The ed is responsible for reporting to the medical director and the board. The safety director (sd) is the third prong. The sd is responsible for overseeing patient, staff, and facility safety. Compliance with all government safety regulations and chamber manufacturer specifications must be maintained. The sd also oversees staffing and equipment maintenance. The sd reports to the executive director.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th 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: -315.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.93; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -83.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $179K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $18K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.