California Consortium for Urban Indian Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204878959
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Concord, CA, USA
Phone
4153451205
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,970,885
Expenses
$3,068,794
Assets
$2,353,252
Liabilities
$265,307

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SONYA TETNOWSKI (President)
  • SCOTT BLACK (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • VIRGINIA HEDRICK (Executive Dir.): $234,846 total reported compensation
  • KESCIA TURNER HARRIS (FINANCE DIR): $157,347 total reported compensation
  • MIRYOM YISRAEL (OPERATIONS DIR): $146,310 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 ccuih is to facilitate shared development resources for our members and to raise public awareness in order to support a health and wellness network that meets the needs of american indians living in urban communities in California.

What it reported doing in 2024

POLICY ADVOCACY: CCUIH is a statewide resource for Urban Indian health data, policy, and advocacy and a trusted partner to Urban Indian Organization leadership in advancing policy and systems change. CCUIH actively monitors, analyzes, and responds to local, state, and federal health policy to ensure Urban Indian communities are included in planning efforts that expand access to care and reduce health disparities. CCUIH engages in Indian consultation processes, provides testimony and written input, and advances policy priorities that strengthen Urban Indian health funding, systems, and services. CCUIH produces and distributes policy briefs, position statements, and action alerts on key Urban Indian issues and mobilizes partners to engage in coordinated advocacy. CCUIH also builds strong partnerships with regional, state, and national organizations including the California Primary Care Association, National Council of Urban Indian Health, California Rural Indian Health Board, and the Urban Indian Health Institute to amplify Urban Indian voices and drive collective policy impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $106.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.4% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $234K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.