El Dorado Community Health Centers

Legal name: El Dorado Community Health Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421533531
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Phone
(530) 621-7700
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,596,075
Expenses
$31,436,924
Assets
$38,078,544
Liabilities
$26,162,495

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CALEB SANDFORD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • VERONICA VELASQUEZ-MORFIN (CLINICAL DIRECTOR): $348,093 total reported compensation
  • CLINTON COLLINS (PHYSICIAN (THRU 02/25)): $342,943 total reported compensation
  • CALEB SANDFORD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $303,313 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improving the health of our community through quality healing and preventive services.

What it reported doing in 2024

The center provided primary medical, dental, optical and behavioral health services to over 11,942 patients and performed over 75,481 health visits. In addition, the center has a mat (medically assisted treatment) program to help patients with opioid use disorder. The organization continued to utilize televideo/audio visits, continued remote visits in the dental van and in the mobile medical unit, and have continued providing women's healthcare that includes limited hospital out-patient care. In fiscal year 2025, the organization added chiropratic services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $309.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Missing
    • 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $348K · 26 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $893K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 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: 7 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.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.