Gulf Coast Blood
Legal name: Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741809687
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Houston, Texas, US
- Phone
- (713) 791-6373
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Blood Supply Related
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $132,655,313
- Expenses
- $124,342,216
- Assets
- $185,978,097
- Liabilities
- $19,692,988
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NIKHIL NAYAK (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- BRIAN G GANNON (PRESIDENT/CEO - JAN 2024)
Highest reported compensation
- NIKHIL NAYAK (PRESIDENT/CEO): $627,948 total reported compensation
- ELIZABETH A HARTWELL (CMO): $529,596 total reported compensation
- ERIC EATON (CFO): $420,032 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 partner with the community to help save and sustain lives by providing a safe supply of blood, biotherapies, and related services.
What it reported doing in 2024
The blood center performs 14 different tests on every unit of blood collected. Our consultation and reference laboratory serve as a compatibility testing service and provides suitable, safe and effective blood and blood components for transfusion to patients in over 100 facilities. The laboratory also functions as a reference laboratory for clients and area hospitals performing and evaluating a wide variety of tests to resolve complex serological patient problems. Consultation and reference also registers rare donors with the american rare donor program (ardp) and provides and receives rare units through ardp.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: 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: 6.3%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $114.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $628K · 32 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.