Palliative Connections of California Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460585144
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
9188943487
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Hospices

Reported finances

Revenue
$-2,207
Expenses
$116,072
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWIN GUNGOR (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • EDWIN GUNGOR (PRESIDENT)
  • ROGER A BRUHN (TREASURER)
  • GAIL GUNGOR (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We supply world-class care for terminally ill patients regardless of their ability to pay. We devote a percentage of our revenues to socially responsible programs. We also form strategic alliances with business partners and private foundations in order to fund worthwhile causes.

What it reported doing in 2016

Our team of doctors, nurses, social workers, dieticians and therapists at palliative connections serves our patients, our families, and our community with a total commitment to excellence in hospice care. When curative treatment for a life-limiting illness is no longer an option, hospice care can help address the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the patient and family. We walk together with those we serve to provide comfort and peace, while preserving dignity and quality of life. We do so regardless of the patient's ability to pay.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 89.9%; rating input score 90

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5,359.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.4% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $104K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.