Austin Children's Chest Associates II
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 260163261
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 3147338000
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,561,204
- Expenses
- $5,504,475
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our Mission as part of a Catholic health care system is to further the healing ministry of Jesus by continually improving the health and well-being of all people, especially the poor, in the communities we serve.
What it reported doing in 2016
Austin Children's Chest Associates II ("ACCA") is organized as a Texas non-profit health organization pursuant to Texas laws and the Texas Medical Board's rules and regulations governing non-profit health corporations. Accomplishments: 1. Opening of Cedar Park with Dr. Danielle Beachler serving the pediatric pulmonary patient population in the North Market (Williamson County). 2. Provided 14,366 patient visits in FY17 for pediatric pulmonary and sleep medical care services to Central Texas children. 3. Provided asthma medical care for 1,266 pediatric patients with socioeconomic barriers in Central Texas. 4. Provided comprehensive medical care services to the pediatric population of Central Texas with Cystic Fibrosis, at the Specialty Care Center located at Dell Children's Medical Center, a member of the Seton Hospitals ("Dell Children's Medical Center").
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 28
- Sustainability: 1
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 49.1%; rating input score 49
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: -114.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 49.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -47.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 49.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.6M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $262K reported
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 41 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.