Top O Texas Crisis Pregnancy Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752398394
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pampa, TX, USA
Phone
8066692229
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$483,394
Expenses
$172,373
Assets
$697,343
Liabilities
$4,470

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET HANCOCK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MONICA GALLOWAY (EXECUTIVE DI): $32,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Crisis pregnancy center: to meet the physical, emotional, & spiritual needs of women in a crisis pregnancy so that she may make an informed decision regarding the outcome of her pregnancy, and to educate her about the consequences of sexual activity outside the bond of marriage, and to proclaim the good news of jesus christ in a practical way. Hope house maternity home: to provide a refuge for young pregnant women who find themselves in a crisis situation; with the goal of giving direction and hope in life.

What it reported doing in 2025

Clients are provided services including pregnancy tests, sonograms and lay counseling using video presentations and literature to assist in crisis intervention, parenting and at-risk behavior modification. They also provided a home at various times during the year for pregnant women in crisis situation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.8%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.05; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.8% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $171K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.