Journey Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581426458
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
Phone
4232805740
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospices

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,985,254
Expenses
$4,567,800
Assets
$122,481,999
Liabilities
$70,521

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TRACY WOOD (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TRACY WOOD (PRESIDENT/CEO): $354,389 total reported compensation
  • DENISE DYE (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $135,741 total reported compensation
  • JASMIN RIPPON END 052024 (DIRECTOR OF FUNDRAISING AN): $133,494 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Convene passionate, collaborative partners to help build bold, data-driven systems and solutions that promote healthy communities for all

What it reported doing in 2024

Journey health foundation entered into an agency service agreement with care hospice, inc. ("care"). Care provides hospice, palliative, and related services to patients and families in multiple locations in the united states and receives requests to donate funds from families, employees, and other donors for the support of hospice related uses and purposes. Under the terms of the agreement, the organization will serve as the receiving agent of contributions from such donors. The organization will, from accumulated contributions received, make distributions once per month, or as directed if a significant one-time lump sum distribution, to support hospice and/or palliative care advocacy and education, hospice patient families in need, hospice nursing financial assistance and other related purposes. The organization will receive an administrative fee of ten percent of all contributions received for such services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.6%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.81; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $354K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $351K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.