Paramount Health Data Project
Legal name: Paramount Health Data Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 843988197
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Indianapolis, IN, US
- Phone
- 3173616772
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Interdisciplinary Research
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $413,061
- Expenses
- $352,427
- Assets
- $137,370
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KYLE CARLSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- AZURE ANGELOV (CEO)
People named in this filing
- TOMMY REDDICKS (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD)
- KYLE CARLSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JESS MONK (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Paramount Health Data Project (PHDP) is based on the knowledge that there is an interaction between health, poverty, and education that impacts overall health and wellness including academic performance.
What it reported doing in 2024
The paramount health data project inc (phdp) believes health and education are inextricably intertwined and that students' health needs to be treated as a component of their preparation for success in life. We help schools sort and correlate data so they have the facts they need to make the best decisions for students.we aid schools in leveraging large data sets to enhance and sustain existing processes of academic and health supports. We do this in two ways:-we correlate your academic achievement data and social determinants of health data for use in the mtss process to ensure professionals have valid and reliable data for faster on the ground decision-making.-we include health providers as an academic partner, phdp ensures schools have a clear pathway to leverage federal title dollars to sustain health services in a fiscally responsible way.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 46
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.7%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 14.7%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -35.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 48.7% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $201K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.