Kootenai Health
Legal name: Boundary Regional Health Center Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043634356
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rathdrum, ID, US
- Phone
- 208-666-2000
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,574,566
- Expenses
- $22,646,188
- Assets
- $22,081,958
- Liabilities
- $11,867,390
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEVIN KNEPPER (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NICOLE RUSSELL (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $314,531 total reported compensation
- KEVIN KNEPPER (CEO): $241,418 total reported compensation
- NICK MILLER (DENTAL DIRECTOR): $236,934 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of kaniksu community health is to provide quality, affordable and accessible care for our communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Kaniksu community health (center) provided behavioral health services to the citizens of boundary and bonner counties. These services were provided to all who needed behavioral health attention regardless of a persons ability to pay. The center utilizes a sliding fee schedule up to 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. For applicants that qualify based on income and family size, a portion of or all their charges may be forgone for a nominal fee or a percentage of charges.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.9%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: $1,342.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 61.9% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $16.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $315K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.