Utah Association of Local Health Departments
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 200861859
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Brigham City, UT, USA
- Phone
- 4356712065
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,192,964
- Expenses
- $1,164,522
- Assets
- $685,091
- Liabilities
- $187,886
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JILL PARKER (Executive Dir.): $173,342 total reported compensation
- KRISTI JONES (HEALTH EQUITY COORDINATOR): $111,073 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Utah Association of Local Health Departments is to support Utah's 13 local health departments in promoting and protecting public and environmental health through prevention and education. Specifically, through legislative education and awareness and coordination of state and local partnerships.
What it reported doing in 2025
Coordination of state and local partnerships - Utah Association of Local Health Department proactively establishes ongoing partnerships with state and local leaders to support local health departments in preventing disease, promoting healthy lifestyles, and protecting communities and the environment. These partnerships are aimed at building a collaborative state and local public health system including identifying new funding opportunities to support the local system. The success of public health in communities and statewide relies heavily on strong partnerships. These may include higher education, private business, local and state agencies and many others who are interested and motivated in making a difference.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 16
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 39.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.