A Time for Play
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 332636773
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7134122729
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $98,340
- Expenses
- $59,444
- Assets
- $39,398
- Liabilities
- $502
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEVEN PARKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- STEVEN PARKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the nonprofit organization is to promote access to effective mental health services within the community primarily by educating mental health professionals on the theories, benefits, techniques, and skills of Play Therapy and ethical clinical practice. The organization shall promote access through delivery of mental health training services to local, state, national, and international audiences. The purposes of this organization are educational. The organization presents coninuing education events for mental health professionals and offers scholarship programs for attendance into the program.
What it reported doing in 2025
A Time for Play presented free workshops at the Texas Association for Play Therapy conference (April 2025)and the international association for play therapy conference (October 2025)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 13
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 10%; rating input score 10
- Program expense ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 17
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 39.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 10% of revenue deployed · 16.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.