Cell Phones for Soldiers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201343425
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
7815882608
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$617,242
Expenses
$2,363,887
Assets
$3,315,286
Liabilities
$155,530

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT BERGQUIST JR (FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR): $186,634 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 provide cost-free communication services and emergency funding to active-duty military.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization raises funds to provide support to pursue its mission of providing aid to service men and women. This is achieved by donations from the public of money and cell phones, which are sold in a recycling program. The proceeds are then used to buy prepaid calling cards and distribute them to armed service members and veterans as well as provide other support. Also, in 2022 proceeds were used to fund our new program, cell phones for soldiers mobile, to benefit veterans and active duty troops. Cell phones for soldiers mobile was expanded in 2025, reaching more veterans to provide high quality devices and phone service at no charge to them. Cell phones for soldiers will continue its mission to provide a means of communication for military members, veterans and their families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98%; rating input score 98; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -283%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $187K · 7 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $820K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.