Native American Health Center
Legal name: Native American Health Center Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237135928
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Phone
- (510) 434-5421
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $55,184,451
- Expenses
- $45,926,157
- Assets
- $69,792,608
- Liabilities
- $18,125,133
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Natalie Aguilera (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Anjuli Piya (CMO): $512,615 total reported compensation
- Alan Wong (CFO): $431,656 total reported compensation
- Natalie Aguilera (CEO): $384,109 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Native American Health Center is a community health center for EVERYONE. We have been serving our community with comprehensive, culturally responsive care since 1972.
What it reported doing in 2024
Other Program Services: WIC: The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program at NAHC is a Federally funded through State Grants Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and provides supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.School Based Health Centers: the School-based health centers (SBHCs) at NAHC are primary care clinics located at 9 middle and High school campuses in Alameda County. SBHCs provide a combination of primary care, mental health care, substance abuse counseling, case management, dental health, nutrition education, health education and health promotion.
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 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- 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: 16.8%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 67% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $36.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $513K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 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: 9 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.