Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920041414
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Bethel, Alaska, USA
Phone
907-543-6000
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,092,642
Expenses
$161,656,826
Assets
$322,709,737
Liabilities
$36,099,676

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Daniel Winkelman (CEO)
  • Tiffany Zulkosky 316 - 916 (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Faith N Pinkerton (ER Unit Chief): $406,507 total reported compensation
  • David F Vanderburgh (Medical Doctor Radiologist): $399,067 total reported compensation
  • Ellen K Hodges (Chief of Staff): $385,238 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide comprehensive healthcare services to the people of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, honoring the culture and values of the communities we serve.

What it reported doing in 2015

Indian health service: Provided to 48 rural communities in Southwest Alaska with hospital in-patient and out-patient care, sub-regional clinic service, community health care, dental services, eye care, emergency medical services, mental health, substance abuse counseling and related services. In fiscal year 2011, YKHC added a new sobriety center to provide services to intoxicated individuals, giving them a safe and respectful place to sober. In fiscal year 2014, YKHC added a skilled nursing facility.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 67.1%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 53% of revenue deployed · 73.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $118.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $407K · 37 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.