Nagna Academy of Certified Health Professionals Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223913301
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Carl Junction, MO, USA
Phone
4176236049
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$603,965
Expenses
$601,128
Assets
$38,101
Liabilities
$247,122

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI J PORTER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA D SWEET (CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER): $91,000 total reported compensation
  • LORI J PORTER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $56,000 total reported compensation
  • JEFFERY S WELLMAN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $55,167 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of academy of certified health professionals (achp) is dedicated to workforce development, education, and training in health care with a primary focus in geriatrics.

What it reported doing in 2016

Courses that provide a diverse curriculum imparting skills beyond basic certified nursing training, yet valuable in rendering quality care to aging individuals; skills to assist the frontline staff in becoming the effective employees and true assets for the individuals they serve and their employers. Employer partners are using these courses to meet their staff development/improvement /education needs/development/improvement/education needs.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 14
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • 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 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.49; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $445K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.