Bastrop County Cares

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473250104
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Bastrop, TX, USA
Phone
5125814055
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,368,652
Expenses
$2,070,034
Assets
$673,813
Liabilities
$127

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHARLIE COULTER (DIRECTOR)
  • WILLY CULBERSON (CHAIR)
  • DR JANICE SUMLER EDMOND (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Bastrop county cares is a county-wide partnership of public, private, faith-based, and nonprofit organizations, institutions, and individuals which collaboratively identifies and strengthens the social, health, educational, and economic opportunities in bastrop county. Our mission is to improve the lives of people in the bastrop county community by identifying large community issues that no one organization can tackle on its own, researching, collecting and analyzing data, make decisions on community issues together, build public will, advance policy, and mobilize/leverage funding.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bastrop county cares has revised its organizational framework to strengthen its role as a backbone organization supporting collective impact initiatives across the county. Our work is now centered on the collective impact collaborative engagement model, which brings together community leaders, organizations, and individuals with lived experience to align efforts and resources toward shared outcomes. This model allows us to address the social determinants of health-including economic stability, education access and quality, thriving communities, and health care access-through structured collaboratives, task forces, and a leadership council. These groups meet regularly to identify priorities, coordinate strategies, and leverage community assets to drive lasting change. By embedding principles of shared measurement, cross-sector collaboration, and community voice, bastrop county cares ensures that collaborative efforts reduce disparities, promote positive change, and improve the health and well-being of residents across bastrop county. This revision reflects our strategic direction to move beyond individual program delivery toward community-wide impact that addresses root causes of health and social challenges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.9%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.9% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.