Kansas Healthcare Collaborative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943483497
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Topeka, KS, USA
Phone
7852350763
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,431,258
Expenses
$1,868,298
Assets
$1,937,229
Liabilities
$96,654

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Malea Hartvickson (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Malea Hartvickson (Executive Director): $167,176 total reported compensation
  • Eric Cook-Wiens (Data & Measurement Director): $125,078 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Engaging and aligning providers and stakeholders to establish Kansas as a role model for health care quality and a top performer in health care outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Collaborative has entered into an agreement with Health Quality Innovators (HQI) to assist with the delivery of services related to the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quality (TDIQ) contract which HQI has with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to become a Network of Quality Improvement and Innovation Contractor. The Collaborative is assisting in recruiting participation in the study from Kansas communities and assisting with the conduct of the study.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $55.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.