Public Health Data Standards Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200474596
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4438248440
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$291,103
Expenses
$328,808
Assets
$81,260
Liabilities
$3,479

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONALD MON (PRESIDENT)
  • ANNA ORLOVA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNA ORLOVA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $174,325 total reported compensation
  • NOAM ARZT (Director): $105,452 total reported compensation
  • Jack Corley (Director): $50,720 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote data standards for population health practice research

What it reported doing in 2013

Promotes the integration of health-related data systems to meet the health data needs of public and private organizations, agencies and individuals. Represents public health interests in the on-going process of the development and implementation of national healthcare standards by involvement in the activities of the existing clinical, administrative and other data standards development and content organizations. Educates the public health community about standards, and the development community about public health data needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 63% 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

MIXED - 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -13%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 110.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $173K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $105K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.