Apple Springs Senior Citizens Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752916135
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Apple Springs, TX, USA
Phone
9368312671
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$76,723
Expenses
$71,584
Assets
$88,786

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HORACE A DAVIS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HORACE A DAVIS (PRESIDENT)
  • JACKIE ROGERS (MEMBER)
  • BOBBY BENTLEY (MEMBER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide meal in a central setting for senior citizens in the apple springs and centerville, trinity county, Texas rural area. In addition, the center will provide programs and services for seniors from time to time. The center will operate utilizing grants and donations from the public, priavate agencies and government agencies to support these projects.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program continued in serving meals to seniors in apple springs and centerville communities. Total meals served were 4,974 of which 4,739 were to target group.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $72K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.