St. Luke's Health - Brazosport Hospital
Legal name: Community Hospital of Brazosport
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741385192
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020
- Location
- Lake Jackson, TX, US
- Phone
- (832) 355-3081
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, General
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $112,511,793
- Expenses
- $102,721,827
- Assets
- $145,403,600
- Liabilities
- $102,315,731
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- T DOUGLAS LAWSON PHD (PRESIDENT, SOUTH REGION (THRU 02/25))
- ROBERT TRAUTMAN (PRESIDENT - ST. LUKE'S HEALTH BRAZOSPORT)
- MICHAEL LAWSON (HOUSTON MARKET PRESIDENT (BEG 12/24))
Highest reported compensation
- T DOUGLAS LAWSON PHD (PRESIDENT, SOUTH REGION (THRU 02/25)): $3,876,407 total reported compensation
- STEVEN FOSTER FACHE (FORMER OFFICER): $1,005,518 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL STEINES MD (BOARD MEMBER/PHYSICIAN): $607,343 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
At CommonSpirit Health, we passionately care for the most vulnerable, relentlessly innovate how and where healing can happen and believe in uniting to benefit the common good.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provide various healthcare services to the citizens of brazosport and the surrounding brazoria county areas. Specialties available were allergy, anesthesia, cardiology, emergency care, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, nephrology, neurology, obstetrics/gynecology, oncology, ophthalmology, oral surgery, orthopedics, pathology, pediatrics, rehabilitation, general surgery, and urology.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st 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: 96.5%; rating input score 97; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $78.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $3.9M · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $914K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 330 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.