Chapa-De Indian Health

Legal name: Chapa-de Indian Health Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942583156
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Auburn, CA, United States
Phone
(530) 887-2800
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$99,407,723
Expenses
$64,867,614
Assets
$299,916,817
Liabilities
$24,939,066

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA DAVIES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA DAVIES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $563,282 total reported compensation
  • SIERK HAITSMA (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $369,338 total reported compensation
  • DARLA CLARK (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $368,889 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide high-quality, accessible healthcare to American Indian and Alaska Native populations and the broader community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Primary health care program - chapa-de indian program, inc provided comprehensive health services to the native-american population and other residents of sierra, placer, and Nevada counties of California. Comprehensive health services include direct patient care, immunizations, health promotion and disease prevention, drug abuse and education/prevention programs, and dental care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th 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: 34.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.62; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 45% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $48.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $563K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.