Care House Partnerships

Legal name: Care House Partnerships - a Nazarene Compassionate Ministry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812880587
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Nampa, ID, USA
Phone
2084663549
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$222,937
Expenses
$139,237
Assets
$641,571
Liabilities
$3,305

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Brian Thomas (Board Chair/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mr Neal Moore (Director): $16,128 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To nourish the whole person – body, mind, and spirit.

What it reported doing in 2025

Care House Clinic - a faith-based clinic providing basic medical, dental and mental health care for uninsured individuals in our community who live between 138%-250% of the federal poverty level. This year, we provided 69 medical, 131 counseling, 17 dental appointments and 322 visits to our Wednesday night vitals clinic. We provided $56,924 of medical and dental services at no charge to our clients, counseling services for a nominal fee, and paid for $4,100 for our clients labs and imaging services

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $226.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.5%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.61; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.3% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $16K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.