The Hartford Dispensary Endowment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222948682
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Manchester, CT, USA
Phone
8606433200
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$579,269
Expenses
$367,614
Assets
$39,647,398
Liabilities
$5,925,965

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL MCLAUGHLIN (executive director)
  • steven zuckerman (PRESIDENT/Ceo)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL MCLAUGHLIN (executive director): $261,582 total reported compensation
  • DARCIE BOIANO (SECRETARY): $88,779 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the hartford dispensary health care system and to support other community activitives and initatives that are in line with its mission. The hartford dispensary endowment corporation's board of directors is cognizant that the hartford dispensary health care system and other agencies are subject to significant uncertainty in the future of the methods, amounts and adequacy of the reimbursement for the services it provides to the community. Most of the health care system's revenues are dependent upon state funding. The dispensary had experienced great changes in the funding in recent years. The board has an objective to build its endowment to enable the hartford dispensary health care system to endure the loss or reduction in funding, while continuing its vital programs for a period of time. The board also has the objective to provide the health care system with working capital sufficient to fund capital projects should outside funding not be available.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide educational fellowship to behavioral health organization to assist in research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 97% 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

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.3%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 107.85; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 73.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.3% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $216K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $262K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.