Blanco River Regional Recovery Team

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474930663
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
San Marcos, TX, USA
Phone
5126779701
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,771,091
Expenses
$1,724,222
Assets
$268,264
Liabilities
$69,596

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EARL BOLLS (PRESIDENT)
  • ROWE RAY (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH WILLS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH WILLS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $114,593 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 strengthen area-wide disaster coordination, mitigation, and recovery in blanco, caldwell, hays, and guadalupe counties by sharing information, supporting preparation and education, simplifying resident access to resources, and assisting affected residents with unmet needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pandemic recovery blanco river regional recovery team [br3t] administered 3 different housing stability services grants with the goal of helping its residents, who have housing instability and financial hardships, to obtain or maintain stable housing. The state grant with tdhca helps residents get into permanent housing; this grant can pay for rental application fees, security and utility deposits, and short-term hotel stays. The city of san marcos grant and the county of hays grant help residents maintain stable housing; these grants can pay for rental and utility assistance for qualified residents. Assisting our residents with stable housing helps them to be better prepared for the next disaster.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.