Urban Community Action Project Dba Health to Hope Clinics

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043656147
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Palm Desert, CA, USA
Phone
9515954444
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$786,327
Expenses
$1,409,703
Assets
$329,161
Liabilities
$20,717

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM BALLAS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM BALLAS (CEO): $79,234 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the health of the medically under-served population in riverside county, California, by providing preventive and primary health care services and other critical community and social services.

What it reported doing in 2020

Urban community action projects (ucap) dba health to hope clinics, believes that the homeless and other under-served individuals have the right to housing, health care and social services that empower and enhance well-being. Addressing the complicated intersection of critical human needs of the under-served and vulnerable communities in riverside county is at the forefront of ucap's service delivery model. Partnering with local and national like-minded organizations and individuals, ucap embraces sustainable, reproducible, community-based solutions to health care that enhances community livability for sheltered and unsheltered homeless families and individuals.in 2020, ucap proceeded with winding down operations and distributed its medical assets to qualified section 501(c)(3) organizations that share ucaps core values.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: -79.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.