Heartspace Collective
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994829316
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Georgetown, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5126621865
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $61,526
- Expenses
- $34,451
- Assets
- $45,884
- Liabilities
- $18,809
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jennie Choi (President)
People named in this filing
- Jennie Choi (President)
- Audrey Iriberri (Director)
- Cherise Lao (Secretary)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
This organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, education, and scientific purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Interanal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code. The mission of the HeartSpace Collective is to create authentic and restorative spaces for transformative connection among women veterans.
What it reported doing in 2025
The HeartSpace Collective Wellness Retreat is a holistic multi-day retreat for women veterans held at a rented facility. Our signature retreats, grounded in the Whole Health model championed by the VA, foster self-care across mind, body, and spirit, and build community to support women veterans as they move from military to civilian life or step into caregiving roles. Our focus is to empower women veterans to not only survive but thrive during life's pivotal transitions. In 2025, we executed two retreats with 16 women veterans in the first and 14 women veterans in the second (including the peer facilitators).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 44%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $35K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.