Houston Galveston Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742044953
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, TX, USA
Phone
7135268390
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,264,032
Expenses
$1,202,252
Assets
$1,299,629
Liabilities
$300,271

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CARRIE KOCH (INTERIM EXE): $104,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Houston galveston institute aims to transform lives and communities with innovative and collaborative therapy, training and research. The organization also aims to promote a respectful, collaborative partnership between the learner and the teacher, and the therapist and the client, thus improving the quality and integrity of the education of mental health professionals and the services they provide. Clinical services provided by the institute offer a learning labratory for the training of psychotherapists and the development and refinement of theory and practice.

What it reported doing in 2024

Training and research programs: family therapy, counseling, and other training programs provided by the institute served seven advanced learners (interns and postgraduate therapists under supervision) on an intensive long-term basis this year, and provided brief training and professional continuing education at low cost for over thirty mental health agency personnel. All internship training and some advanced training is provided at less than cost on a no fee scholarship basis. The institute provided staff training to a variety of other social agencies and educational institutions. The faculty of the institute made numerous professional presentations to the professional mental health community and to national and international professional and scientific associations. The faculty of the institute participated in the publication of research and clinical reports for various mental health journals and publications, and in its own online journal called the international journal of collaborative practices, which is free to all. Faculty of the institute have served as officers, editors, and editorial reviewers for numerous professional and scientific publications. School mental health: hgi has been working collaboratively to provide accessible mental health services, including identification, promotion, prevention, and intervention, to children and adolescents in schools in richmond, tx. Hgi has provided these services for many years and has built important and valuable collaborations with the schools. Currently, hgi serves pre- school, elementary, middle, and high schools. Hgi has maintained our relationship with lamar consolidated independent school district to include nine of their schools with full and part-time therapists. Avance: hgi provides consultations to teachers and parents regarding issues with preschool students in an early childhood setting. Disaster mental health: during the immediate aftermath of hurricane harvey, hgi provided leadership and clinical services for the thousands of people stranded at the george r. Brown convention center shelter. As harris and fort bend counties moved slowly into the recovery phase, hgi participated in the long-term recovery committees, received grants to provide clinical services and trained case managers and other helping professionals about the behavioral health needs of our impacted neighbors. Hgi continued to provide disaster recovery services, training and coordination for fort bend and harris county residents affected by disasters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $993K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.