Nccpa Health Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204381466
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Johns Creek, GA, USA
Phone
6784178100
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$385,011
Expenses
$497,836
Assets
$1,205,196
Liabilities
$258,962

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dawn Morton-Rias (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dawn Morton-Rias (President & CEO): $736,106 total reported compensation
  • Tiffany Flick (Foundation Managing Director): $178,906 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To equip and empower board certified physician assistants (pas) and physician assistant (pa) students to improve health for all.

What it reported doing in 2025

In the area of mental health, the foundation participated in activities to organize stakeholders across the national physician assistant (pa) organizations and other partners to build the pa profession's capacity to embrace and integrate mental health as part of overall health. This work resulted in the continued support for a steering committee, the identification of activities to support focus within the pa movement, the release of a stakeholder report, the presentation of an educational presentation, the continued availability of a mental health community outreach grant, and participation in interprofessional meetings and activities to network with others and raise the visibility of certified pas as mental health care partners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 6.4%; rating input score 6; 41st 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: 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.42; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $278K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $736K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.