Utah Chiropractic Physicians Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371952561
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Pleasant Grove, UT, USA
Phone
4355125604
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$218,833
Expenses
$290,449
Assets
$422,687
Liabilities
$124

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVEN FISHER (President)
  • ELIZABETH DRANEY (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN AXSON (Executive Dir.): $70,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

It is the mission of the UCPA to represent and support every doctor in the state of Utah, regardless of personal philosophy or choice of technique. Our mission is to be a proactive advocate of the chiropractic profession; while protecting the rights and welfare of both the patients it serves, and the licensed doctors it represents. As an association we will work for equal recognition and participation for chiropractic on all aspects of healthcare; including private insurance, government health plans, and any other resource that affects the delivery of healthcare to the people of our great state. As we promote the benefits of chiropractic to all, it is our goal to make Utah the premiere state in which to establish a practice.

What it reported doing in 2023

Educational Programs - The educatiotal programs of the UCPA shall promote the philosophy, science, business and art of chiropractic, while including such subjects as determined by the Board to be pertinent and shall provide a forum for bettcr relations between members of other professions and organizations.The educational programs shall be financially self sufficient unless the expense isdetermined by the Board to be justifiable.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.8%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 24
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -32.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.8% of revenue deployed · 23.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.