Healthy Alaska Natives Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821850261
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Anchorage, AK, USA
Phone
9077293563
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$618,958
Expenses
$562,703
Assets
$9,027,230
Liabilities
$2,681

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLENE NOLLNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EVELYN BEETER (PRESIDENT/ CHAIR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LILAH WALKER (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY): $153,081 total reported compensation
  • CHARLENE NOLLNER (VICE PRESIDENT): $72,186 total reported compensation
  • FRANCIS NORMAN (TREASURER): $62,898 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 work collaboratively toward a common vision that Alaska natives are the healthiest people in the world, improve lives, and inspire good health.

What it reported doing in 2024

The healthy Alaska natives foundation's (hanf's) purpose is to support Alaska native people, tribes, and tribal health organizations in pursuit of Alaska native tribal health consortium's (anthc's) vision that Alaska native people are the healthiest in the world. The healthy Alaska natives foundation works to raise awareness and funding for the Alaska tribal health system. We support key initiatives that deliver sustainable, effective and culturally relevant health care, from providing improvements at medical facilities that serve Alaska native people, to supporting wellness and prevention programs that impact Alaska native populations, to advancing healthy village environments around Alaska.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 9.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.04; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -52.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -50.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.