Tri-County Care Systems Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341552205
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
East Liverpool, OH, USA
Phone
3303857200
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,713,726
Expenses
$7,971,742
Assets
$2,442,167
Liabilities
$1,114,393

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENNETH COCHRAN (CEO)
  • MARK MANGANO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERRENCE E ZIPFEL (PHYSICIAN): $421,475 total reported compensation
  • DR AGGARWAL (PHYSICIAN): $374,500 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH COCHRAN (CEO): $332,717 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Tri-county care systems, inc. Is a parent holding company for the non-profit companies of east liverpool city hospital, Ohio valley home health services and east liverpool professionals.

What it reported doing in 2014

The numbers provided are for river valley physicians which is a disregarded entity of tri-county care systems inc. They provide needed physician services to the community without discrimination.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -69.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $421K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.