Charles Drew Health Center
Legal name: Charles Drew Health Center Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 470666715
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Omaha, Nebraska, US
- Phone
- 402.451.3553
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,400,618
- Expenses
- $26,896,259
- Assets
- $16,018,372
- Liabilities
- $8,047,380
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KENNY MCMORRIS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- DR GREGORY OCHUBA (SENIOR MEDICAL ADVISOR): $290,028 total reported compensation
- DR SONIA ACHARYA-GUPTA (FAMILY PRACTICE PHYSICIAN): $272,880 total reported compensation
- KENNY MCMORRIS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $268,681 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, comprehensive, and compassionate healthcare to all individuals and families in the North Omaha community, regardless of their ability to pay.
What it reported doing in 2024
Primary patient care model includes integrated access to medical, pharmacy, behavioral health including substance use disorders, and oral health care services in communities where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services. Cdhc provides care for the most vulnerable individuals and families, including those experiencing homelessness, residents of public housing, recently incarcerated and veterans. The service delivery supports reproductive health education testing and counseling, disability assistance, translation/interpretation services, transportation, outreach and enrollment support for individuals seeking health insurance coverage, and support for other social determinants of health drivers that impact the quality of life of the individuals and families seeking our services.
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 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: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.1%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: $32.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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; 66th 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: -1.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 65.1% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $17.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 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.
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 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.