University Medical Center Foundation of El Paso

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742540513
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
El Paso, TX, USA
Phone
9155217229
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,679,946
Expenses
$1,187,123
Assets
$3,410,913
Liabilities
$332,622

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CINDY STOUT (CEO, EPCH / DIRECTOR)
  • JACOB CINTRON (CEO, EPCHD / DIRECTOR)
  • ABIGAIL TARANGO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JACOB CINTRON (CEO, EPCHD / DIRECTOR): $2,728,043 total reported compensation
  • JOSE DAVID BURGOS MD (PHYSICIAN, UMC / DIRECTOR): $1,528,561 total reported compensation
  • SHUMYLE ALAM MD (PHYSICIAN, EPCH / DIRECTOR END 03/2025): $748,656 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 support healthcare services across the southwest border region through philanthropic and charitable resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

As the designated fundraising entity for university medical center of el paso (umc), umc foundation raises funds for umc through grants, major gifts and events, with a strategic focus that aligns with the hospital's priorities to improve access to quality healthcare for el paso and the surrounding region. In fy25, the foundation provided $1,074,775 in support to umc through equipment contributions, program funding, and direct assistance to patients. A breakdown of fy25 contributions is provided below. Fy25 - university medical center foundation of el paso contributions: contributions of equipment - $80,500 for surewash hand hygiene training station which trains and tracks competency of all healthcare workers who care for patients or touch items used by the patients. Follows the 5 steps of the who guidelines to reduce hospital infections. - $18,000 for geriatric carts would provide low-cost, non-pharmacological intervention items that can enhance the overall care of seniors provided at umc, such as: warm blankets, beanies, gloves to improve comfort. Hearing amplifiers, reading glasses, hearing aid batteries to improve patient communication. Large print magazines, coloring books, etc. Other contributions to umc - $312,376 for the nurse residency program - $162,861 for paso del norte pharmacy residency - $15,000 for breast reconstruction surgery - $5,278 for caring for our own - $2,974 for patient assistance contributions to others - $329,634 in general in-kind donations - $74,465 in other contributions - $54,955 for the el paso health car seat safety program - $16,405 for the compassionate care program - $1,500 for utep scholarships - $827 for oncology services

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80.8%; rating input score 81; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.3%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.87; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.7M · 31 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.