Caring Aggies R Protecting Over Our Live

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311760110
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-T 2024
Location
College Station, TX, USA
Phone
9798450692
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hot Line, Crisis Intervention Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$-117,418
Expenses
$46,191
Assets
$54,369
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Samantha Fehlis (Chairman)
  • Billy Seralta (Director)
  • Alexander Hung (Director)

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

Carpool facilitates a safe and reliable commuting environment in the bryan/college station area by providing free, non-judgmental rides home to intoxicated patrons and/or patrons rendered incapable of transportation due to other circumstances.

What it reported doing in 2024

Carpool provides free, safe non-judgmental rides home to intoxicated individuals and/or persons rendered incapable of driving due to other circumstances. We operate during the school year (fall & spring) thursday through saturday from 10pm to 3am. During the fiscal year ended 05/31/25, we provided 723 rides. We provide rides to students of Texas a&m university and visitors and residents of the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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 total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 46.6%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -139.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.8% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 46.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.