Amistad Community Health Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203008507
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Corpus Christi, TX, USA
Phone
3618842242
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,646,625
Expenses
$12,392,851
Assets
$14,019,611
Liabilities
$1,722,473

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZELLE TINNELL (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE WOERNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ERIC BAGGERMAN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA VELA (PSYCHIATRIST): $317,160 total reported compensation
  • SEUNGHWAN KIM (PEDIATRICIAN): $256,006 total reported compensation
  • ABIGAIL WEISENBURGER (PHYSICIAN): $237,116 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose is to show and share the love of jesus christ to the corpus christi community by providing holistic, affordable, and quality health care services. We recognize jesus christ as the true healer of individuals and communities and the source of our ability to serve.

What it reported doing in 2024

Amistad community health center, inc. Was incorporated in 2005 to operate as a not-for-profit community health center. The health center was formed with the mission to provide the corpus christi community with holistic, affordable, quality health care. The health center strives to provide the under-served health care population in the corpus christi community with the highest medical care available.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 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: 2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $317K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.