Tuolumne Me-Wuk Indian Health Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251902459
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tuolumne, CA, USA
Phone
209-928-5400
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,726,094
Expenses
$24,892,255
Assets
$23,795,056
Liabilities
$8,510,321

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET PEPPER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAYNA YOUNG (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $372,837 total reported compensation
  • FELIX CONTE (PEDIATRICIAN): $321,145 total reported compensation
  • HOANG NGUYEN (DENTAL DIRECTOR): $291,246 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, primary health care for the Tuolumne Me-Wuk tribal members, other Native Americans, and residents of surrounding communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The outpatient medical center at our community health centers are open and available monday through friday, from 8am to 5pm. The health centers provide all the services of a family medical practice as well as behavioral health services. The centers provide care access to the tuolumne band of the me-wuk indians of the tuolumne reservation, to all other native americans, and to all other residents of the county of tuolumne and surrounding areas. All of these are medically under-served areas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.6%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Missing
    • 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: 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: 10.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 58.6% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $16.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $373K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.