White Bird Clinic
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 930585814
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Eugene, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5413428255
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hot Line, Crisis Intervention Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $22,353,657
- Expenses
- $23,705,756
- Assets
- $17,938,760
- Liabilities
- $3,953,673
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK ERICKSON (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DANA O'MARY (MEDICAL DIRE): $187,582 total reported compensation
- JEREMY GATES (EXECUTIVE DI): $136,711 total reported compensation
- STEPHEN BARRETT (DENTIST): $136,256 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 a collective environment organized to enable people to gain control of their social, emotional, and physical well-being through direct service, education, and community.
What it reported doing in 2024
White bird clinic (the clinic) is a federally qualified health center that provides primary care services in underserved areas. The clinic provides medical, dental, and mental health services to serve people who are unserved, underinsured, disabled and/or homeless. The clinic had 1,616 medical and 18,647 mental health visits during the year. The clinic provides care to patients covered by governmental programs at below cost and to individuals that are unable to pay.
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 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $338K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.