Jps Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752717782
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8177027310
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,411,759
Expenses
$2,962,217
Assets
$10,470,386
Liabilities
$408,249

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEAH KING (PRESIDENT JPS FOUNDATION (START: 10/2024))
  • SHANNON FLETCHER (INTERIM PRESIDENT OF JPS FOUNDATION (START: 2/2024 & END: 10/2024))
  • DR KAREN DUNCAN (PRESIDENT & CEO OF JPS HEALTH NETWORK)
  • CHERYL SUTTERFIELD (PRESIDENT OF JPS FOUNDATION (END: 2/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • DR KAREN DUNCAN (PRESIDENT & CEO OF JPS HEALTH NETWORK): $1,454,407 total reported compensation
  • SHANNON FLETCHER (INTERIM PRESIDENT OF JPS FOUNDATION (START: 2/2024 & END: 10/2024)): $495,534 total reported compensation
  • TERESA YEARGINS (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $174,101 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Jps foundation is a public/private collaboration dedicated to acts of service and support to improve the health status of families receiving health care via jps health network. It is the foundation for jps health network.

What it reported doing in 2024

For the year ended september 30, 2025, health and human assistance services were provided for patients and employees of the tarrant county hospital district dba jps health network (tchd) through patient assistance, dental vouchers, and employee giving campaign. Jps foundation also provides support for activities of tchd, the supported organization, including capital projects and other programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.53; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.