San Mateo County Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943116070
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Mateo, CA, USA
Phone
6505732655
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,494,164
Expenses
$1,742,706
Assets
$7,925,543
Liabilities
$134,790

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Jurow (CEO)
  • Chester Kunnappilly MD (CEO of San Mateo Medical Center)

Highest reported compensation

  • Chester Kunnappilly MD (CEO of San Mateo Medical Center): $602,761 total reported compensation
  • John Jurow (CEO): $260,871 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

San Mateo County Health Foundation promotes and champions the health and well-being of all residents of San Mateo County community, regardless of ability to pay, primarily through supporting excellence and innovation in the County's hospital and clinic system.

What it reported doing in 2024

Behavioral Health Mentored Internship Program- Through partnership with Jefferson Union High School District San Mateo County Health Foundation facilitated a financial support for Mentored Internship Program as part of California Behavioral Health Workforce Development. Daly City Youth Health Center develops and implements a mental health internship training and professional development program to assist in the treatment and recovery of patients with Substance Use Disorder, Mental Health, or co-occurring disorders. Interns participate in robust and on-going training while also paired with a mentor to support and guide interns during the program. Mental health interns, along with a behavioral health team, provide individual, family, and group therapies to San Mateo County residents in need. In order to meet the specific needs of clients, the services are provided in a clinic, schools, community, and client homes. The program successfully trained over 20 interns who have helped to serve over 252 clients. 74.2% of these clints have achieved reliable or clinically significant change in their wellbeing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.55; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $603K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.