Lchd Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832045631
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tahoka, TX, USA
Phone
8069984533
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$129,618
Expenses
$128,203
Assets
$1,452,364
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SETH MANLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SETH MANLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $213,525 total reported compensation
  • CONNIE DONALD (DIRECTOR): $95,971 total reported compensation
  • JAKE MCMILLIN (SECRETARY): $89,521 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To operate exclusively for the support and benefit of, to be responsive to the needs of, to perform one or more of the functions of, and to assist in carrying out the purposes of lynn county hopsital district ("lchd") and by carrying out any other activity which supports, is responsive to, or assists the needs of the sick, injured, afflicted, infirmed or disabled.

What it reported doing in 2024

To promote and carry on educational activities related to rendering care to the sick and injured or the promotion of health education of the general public which may be justified by the availablity of lchd facilities, personnel or funds; to assist and raise funding for additional construction and furnishings of lchd; to participate, to the extent that circumstance may warrant, in any activity designed to carry on and promote the general health of the community; and, to assist lchd in expanding its operations to meet the needs of the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 84.5%; rating input score 85; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.33; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $214K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.