Public Health Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231985544
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2159852500
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$648,213
Expenses
$2,232,159
Assets
$14,283,855
Liabilities
$1,890,130

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD COHEN (chairman): $1,184,270 total reported compensation
  • michael pearson (treasurer): $1,071,587 total reported compensation
  • Robert Block (Member): $795,428 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To improve the health of the Delaware valley community through innovative & effective public health initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public health fund (the "fund"phf") is a charitable organization that has fostered health care delivery, research and education in the greater Delaware valley since 1996. Public health fund's mission is to improve the health of the Delaware valley community through innovative and effective public health initiatives. The Delaware valley includes the eight county greater philadelphia area including philadelphia, bucks, chester, Delaware and montgomery counties in Pennsylvania and burlington, camden and gloucester counties in New Jersey.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 48
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 9th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -244.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.4; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 49% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 5 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 25 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.