Utah Navajo Health System
Legal name: Utah Navajo Health System Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 870560763
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Montezuma Creek, UT, US
- Phone
- (435) 651-3700
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,399,441
- Expenses
- $95,973,310
- Assets
- $106,173,012
- Liabilities
- $16,393,075
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL JENSEN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- L VAL JONES (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER/PHYS): $732,170 total reported compensation
- DANE LYMAN (PHYSICIAN): $617,106 total reported compensation
- CASEY MCCULLLOUGH (PHYSICIAN): $577,959 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We exist to improve quality of life through comprehensive, self-empowered, culturally-sensitive healthcare and amazing customer service.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization provides behavioral health care on a sliding fee scale for patients. A sliding scale is in place to address the needs of the uninsured and underinsured, providing reduced costs on all health services for those who qualify. Qualifying for the program is based on annual household income. The health system served over 900 patients in their 8 clinics and service offices in tax year 2024.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 28
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $288.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 17 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $65.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $732K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.3M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.