Latched Support Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822701432
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2103837759
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,785,630
Expenses
$1,709,214
Assets
$833,551
Liabilities
$100,341

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Asley Green (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Asley Green (President): $134,000 total reported compensation
  • Veronica Simpkins (Exec Director): $130,231 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Latched Support empowers growing families with life-saving pregnancy and parenting education through resources and advocacy so that children may receive a healthy start in life.

What it reported doing in 2025

Pregnancy & Doula Program- Latched Support provides culturally responsive, community- based prenatal and postpartum support to pregnant women and families, with a focus on improving maternal and infant health outcomes. Services include pregnancy education, breastfeeding education, childbirth preparation, hospital postpartum rounding, labor and postpartum doula support, and resource navigation. In 2025, the program supported 180 families through the Community-Based Doula Program, reached 869 families through hospital postpartum rounding, and provided evidence-based education and support to help families prepare for healthy pregnancies, births, and postpartum recovery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.