Good Samaritan Community Services

Legal name: Good Samaritan Center of San Antonio

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741117340
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Antonio, TX, US
Phone
210-434-5531
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood Centers
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,644,903
Expenses
$4,189,721
Assets
$6,151,486
Liabilities
$509,263

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SIMON SALAS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SIMON SALAS (CEO): $134,864 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA GARCIA (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $74,042 total reported compensation
  • STEVE VELING (FORMER CFO): $41,190 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Empowering Communities to Thrive

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth and teen services: youth and teen services (yts) offers after-school, in-school, and summer programs that serves youth ages 6 to 18 at multiple sites in san antonio and brownsville. The goal of yts is to assist participants in acquiring the life and academic skills necessary for personal success. Programs are built around five (5) pillars: support academic achievement, encourage healthy decisions, explore college and career pathways, develop leaders, and engage families. Activities are theme and module based and include academic support, character asset building, vocational exploration, college preparation, connection to workforce development activities, support for making healthy choices, nutrition and exercise, and leadership development. Each program component is designed to build life skills and confidence, the foundations of improved school performance and life success. Yts served 2,186 youth for the fiscal year-ended august 31, 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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.
  • 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.5%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 9.8%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 77.5% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.