Adult and Teen Challenge of Texas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741816616
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Antonio, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2106242075
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,555,186
- Expenses
- $9,452,491
- Assets
- $15,017,674
- Liabilities
- $4,058,162
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- George Thomas (President/CEO)
- Austin Baughman (Executive Director)
- Greg Ambroson (Executive Director)
- Rodger Anderson (Executive Director)
- Jonathan Mitchell (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- George Thomas (President/CEO): $137,800 total reported compensation
- Sarah Baughman (Director of Development): $69,500 total reported compensation
- Austin Baughman (Executive Director): $65,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See Schedule O.
What it reported doing in 2024
Adult and Teen Challenge is the faith-based solution for the drug epidemic. The scope of Adult and Teen Challenge has grown over the years, and now serves adults as well as teenagers. There are almost 200 Adult and Teen Challenge campuses in the United States, and over 1,000 centers world wide in over 80 countries, which provide Christian recovery services to individuals of every age and social background. Typically, these services are long-term residential recovery centers which provide a life-encompassing enviroment through which the participant is able to change their lifestyle and develop a plan for future free from addiction. Another core tenet of Adult and Teen Challenge is drug abuse prevention, which educates young adults on the dangeres and reality of drug abuse in our society. Adult and Teen Challenge admitted 595 men and women in 2024 and graduated 182 from its 12 month residential program.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 75
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.6%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 24.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.6% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $138K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.