Galveston Sustainable Communities Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 452473846
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2022
- Forms available
- Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Galveston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 4097660982
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $120
- Expenses
- $74,154
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JERI KINNEAR (Vice President)
- PATRICIA GRAY (President)
People named in this filing
- DOUGLAS W MATTHEWS (Director)
- LULU BENAVIDEZ (Director)
- JERI KINNEAR (Vice President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of GSCA as set out in its By-Laws includes creation of sustainable and holistic neighborhood revitalization through education [and] integrated social services that provide opportunity for [Galveston] residents to succeed. GSCA's initial focus was on education, and the organization successfully partnered with the local school district and other community organizations to create the first in-district PreK charter school in Texas as well as an enhanced program for technical and career training options for high school students. By the end of 2019 GSCA was shifting its focus to examining social services that affect the ability of Galveston families to move to sustainable self-sufficiency.
What it reported doing in 2022
GSCA continued work on its community survey examining the relationship between situational poverty, intergenerational poverty, and barriers to families ability to move out of poverty in the city of Galveston. Through its collaboration with Galveston CoCare, a network of non-profits that provide direct social services, and the newly named UTMB Graduate School of Public and Population Health (GSPPH), GSCA was able to provide a preliminary analysis from initial survey data collected in 2021 for the Galveston Foundation Roundtable. Following that presentation, GSCA finalized collection of additional surveys. Analysis of all the data has been finalized by the GSPPH which will create a report to be shared with the Galveston CoCare network as well as the Galveston Foundation Roundtable. In August, the GSCA Board met to determine whether to look for a new project or to cease operations. By unanimous vote, the Board decided the time was right to cease operations effective December 31, 2022. Galveston CoCare agreed to maintain the internet-based resource directory of local social service agencies GSCA created by updating and developing additional information through its network. GSPPH agreed to finalize data analysis and to coordinate with Galveston CoCare in distributing a report on the data to relevant parties in the city. In addition, the collaboration fostered between Galveston CoCare and the GSPPH will create future opportunities for research and data gathering that will be beneficial to the community as a whole and very much in keeping with the mission and purpose of GSCA when formed. GSCA distributed its remaining assets in accordance with its bylaws and the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 97
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 7
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -61,695%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -25.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -27.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -19.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2022
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.