Compassionate Touch Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202193278
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7135241055
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospices
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,297,168
- Expenses
- $1,261,016
- Assets
- $1,666,565
- Liabilities
- $26,683
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Justin Thompson (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Justin Thompson (Executive Director): $101,957 total reported compensation
- Virgil Fry (Board Vice Chair): $7,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to aid families of the seriously ill in various Texas metropolitan area hospitals with short-term emergency funding for expenses such as housing food transportation parking and or other non-medical needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
This represents total expenses related to patient funding which is the sole objective of Compassionate Touch. Aid is provided based solely on need as assessed in conjunction with hospital social workers without regard to age race religious affiliation etc. Funding is awarded to patients based on need and approved patients are given funding without any fee thus there is no associated program service revenue. See further breakdown of expenses related to patient funding in Part IX Statement of Functional Expenses. Additionally note that our Program Service Expenses per our audited statements include some donated services and facilities expenses which are recorded for GAAP basis financial statements but are eliminated in the preparation of this 990 as required.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0.2%; rating input score 0; 25th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 45 of 47 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.