Erle and Emma White Hospice Endowment Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752579613
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Wichita Falls, TX, USA
Phone
9406910982
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$217,002
Expenses
$135,487
Assets
$2,419,463
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DEREK FRANCIS (TRUSTEE): $124,354 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Operated for the exclusive support of hospice of wichita falls, inc., a 501(c)3 organization that provides hospice care, support, and bereavement services to patients and their

What it reported doing in 2023

The erle and emma white hospice endowment trust (the trust) was created in february 1995 for the purpose of providing funding for the completion of a new 12-bed hospice inpatient facility, and for the remodeling of the existing administration office building of hospice of wichita falls, inc. During 1995 and 1996, the trust provided an aggregate $2,000,000 of the cost of completing the projects. The hospice inpatient facility located in wichita falls, Texas is owned and operated by hospice of wichita falls, inc., a tax exempt organization for those times when patients have pain or other symptoms that can not be controlled at home. During 2023 the trust provided $115,379 to hospice of wichita falls, inc. For repairs to and capital improvements of the inpatient facilities and administrative offices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 25
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.6%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.86; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.