Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760273918
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5127078330
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,202
Expenses
$9,866
Assets
$44,681
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WALTER DOGGETT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VICTOR MANUEL (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JING FAN (DIRECTOR)
  • ZILI ZHONG (DIRECTOR)
  • CATHY LIU (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mission: to promote and strengthen our profession while protecting the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine in the state of Texas. We aim to deepen the understanding of our medicine through public education, advocacy, research, and service.vision: to understand and address the needs of Texas acupuncture and oriental medicine professionals and the communities they serve, promote high standards of education and patient care, and provide a unified voice for the profession.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy: educating licensed acupuncturists (lac's), acupuncture students, Texas legislature, regulatory agencies, and public about policy issues facing the acupuncture and oriental medicine profession. All Texas lac's (approximately 1,000) stand to benefit from advocacy efforts as well as the general public. Taaom had 90 members in 2024.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 59.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.53; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.