Telehealth Association of Florida Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474678065
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
Phone
8505133396
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$3,315
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CABALLERO CHRISTIAN (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • FAISON LAUREN (SECRETARY & DIRECTOR)
  • BROWN MONESIA (TREASURER & DIRECTOR)
  • STONE JUSTIN (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary mission of the telehealth association of Florida, inc. ("taf") is to promote access, affordability and quality of healthcare services provided to the citizens of Florida by supporting and actively encouraging the telehealth industry throughout the state.

What it reported doing in 2019

75% of the time taf will be lobbying elected officials and other public servants in attempt to promote legislation and regulations that make the practice of telehealth easier and more efficient in Florida. Lobbying for an improved legal and regulatory environment whereby telehealth services are more easily delivered will lead to the accomplishment of t af's objectives. The lobbying activities mentioned herein will began during the month of september 2015 when the president of the board of directors, along with other representatives of foley & lardner, the law firm hired by taf, began meeting with elected officials and their staff.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -40.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -45.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.