Hunter Health

Legal name: Hunter Health Clinic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480908355
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
316-262-2415
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,946,210
Expenses
$20,920,870
Assets
$22,901,789
Liabilities
$2,148,307

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY FEIMER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CONRADO AGUSTIN (PEDIATRICIAN): $258,303 total reported compensation
  • CAITLIN CHILES (DIR. OF PRIM): $254,373 total reported compensation
  • VALERIE HUNTER (CHIEF DENTAL): $249,358 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Quality Healthcare to Everyone in Our Community

What it reported doing in 2024

Hunter health is a community health center that provides a broad range of health services to a largely medically underserved population of individuals including those experiencing homelessness, american indian/Alaska native communities, and underserved Kansas residents, including those who are uninsured or enrolled in public insurance programs. The organization offers comprehensive primary care services including medical, dental, behavioral health, substance abuse treatment, dietician support, medication assistance, health education, and services that facilitate access to care, such as translation and transportation. Hunter healths patient population is diverse, with approximately 34% identifying as non-hispanic white, 34% as hispanic/latino, 20% as black or african american, and 12% as native american. The organization continues its mission with the support of several funding sources such as the indian health services and Kansas department of health and environment grants.

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 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: 4.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 68.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 27 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 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: 14 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.