American Indian Health and Family Services of Southeastern Mi Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383081615
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Detroit, MI, USA
- Phone
- 3138463718
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,853,566
- Expenses
- $4,867,668
- Assets
- $24,606,233
- Liabilities
- $15,134,409
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EMILY CHASITY DIAL (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JESSE KLEBBA (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $253,929 total reported compensation
- ALICIA STEELE (DOCTOR): $193,792 total reported compensation
- EMILY CHASITY DIAL (CEO): $179,367 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Aihfs will be nationally recognized as a leading urban indian health and community center supporting healthy native people, families, and communities. Continued on schedule o.our approach integrates traditional native american healing and spiritual practices with contemporary western medicine in both treatment and prevention in the areas of: medical carebehavioral health carecommunity health and family wellness services
What it reported doing in 2024
Our exempt purpose is to provide behavior health services to our clients. There were 187 behavior health patients for the year, 1,074 bh encounters. In addition there were a total of 15 suicide risk assesments completed.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 33.9%; rating input score 34
- Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.06; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 33.9% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $663K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.