United Indian Health Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237088205
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arcata, CA, USA
Phone
9165017966
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,034,271
Expenses
$59,442,161
Assets
$81,103,115
Liabilities
$24,153,447

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH LARA-O'ROURKE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS MYERS (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $318,480 total reported compensation
  • ANTOINETTE MARTINEZ (MEDICAL DOCTOR): $286,785 total reported compensation
  • JAMES MATSUDSA (MEDICAL DOCTOR): $282,918 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 together with our clients and community of united indian health services inc. Uihs to achieve wellness through health care services that reflect the traditional value of our american indian community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provided medical dental vision mental health hospital pharmacy physical and occupational therapy and other health services to native americans and their families. Additionally the organization provided diabetes treatment education and prevention health services. Nutrition and other social service programs for low income native americans wic title vi etc. They also provided tobacco education to native americans in humboldt and del norte county. The program provides materials on the hazards of tobacco use peer-led prevention presentations and counseling services. Uihs became members of drug-medical for 2023-2024 allowing for billing and expansion of our behavioral health department. This service expands beyond our suicide tobacco and opioid counseling to include therapeutic services for all ages.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: Limited
  • 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: 4.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.3% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $46.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $11.1M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 44 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • 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: 25 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.