School-Based Health Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541752058
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, US
- Phone
- (202) 638-5872
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health, General and Financing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,219,213
- Expenses
- $12,537,860
- Assets
- $22,492,367
- Liabilities
- $5,727,423
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBERT BOYD (PRESIDENT)
- PAULA FIELDS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
- TAMMIS ALEXANDER (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
- JACQUELYN SHEA CHRISTENSEN (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT BOYD (PRESIDENT): $304,702 total reported compensation
- DEIRDRE PARKER (CHIEF ADMIN. & FINANCE OFFICER): $236,856 total reported compensation
- LAURA BREY (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $232,733 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The School-Based Health Alliance advances school-based health care by offering expertise, driving innovation, advocating for policies, and measuring impact to increase the number of school-based health centers and improve the quality of services they offer.
What it reported doing in 2024
The school-based health alliance is a highly respected provider of extensive technical assistance, training, and consultation to the school-based health care field. Staff has more than 100 years of combined experience in designing, operating, and evaluating school-based health center (sbhc) programs. Our team is committed to working towards four goals for the field: 1. Increased revenue 2. New school services 3. Stronger partnerships 4. Expanded services
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 83% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $1,506.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -52.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $305K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 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: 43 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 36 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.