Brazos Electric Rate Payer Hardship Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
886793004
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Waco, TX, USA
Phone
7136513770
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,001,442
Expenses
$750,419
Assets
$154,716,824
Liabilities
$135,886

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUSSELL YOUNG (PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN MEERS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RUSSELL YOUNG (PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN MEERS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JIM BATES (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The principal purpose of the trust is to mitigate the impact of the february 2021 winter storm uri-related securitization charges on low income cooperative ratepayers of the participating 15 brazos electric member cooperatives in this trust.

What it reported doing in 2025

There are an estimated 134,000 potentially eligible households, based on eligibility criteria , in the participating member cooperatives (pmc) service area. Customers may apply for the benefits through solix, a third party specializing in eligibility determination, and those customers deemed eligible will receive credits from the pmcs on their monthly invoices for electric service to cover securitization charges included in those invoices. The credits are funded from reimbursements the hardship fund pays the pmcs after the low income customers receive the credit on their bills. The fund was set up in december of 2022 and began disbursing funds to the pmcs in 2023. During 2025 approximately 1,213 people received benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • 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; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 206.17; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -114% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $541K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $239K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.