Casi Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742330479
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Diboll, TX, USA
Phone
9362388440
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$178,754
Expenses
$198,062
Assets
$674,294
Liabilities
$15,557

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES BURNS (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF BAUER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE HERRIES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • MELISSA PATE (TALLYMASTER)
  • TERRY PERKINS (DIRECTOR)
  • BETTY RAMIREZ (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to promote chili and raise money for charity. Chili appreciation society international, inc (casi) sanctions cookoffs at which funds are raised for charities. We host an annual championship for qualifying cooks, award scholarships and provide grants to the local community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Assistance to domestic individuals. Casi grants scholarships on a national basis currently providing $1,000 per year scholarships to approximately 30 students. At the first board meeting of each fiscal year, the board authorizes the number of scholarships to be granted for the current year. In 2025, 7 scholarships were awarded which includes one scholarship for the valedictorian and the salutatorian of the terlingua high school and 2 trade school scholarships. A specified number of additional scholarships can be applied for by any high school graduating student. The application form is posted on the casi website. Applicants must fill out the application and mail it to the scholarship committee chairman. The applications are distributed to all of the committee members who review them individually and then rank them in the order in which they believe the scholarships should be granted. The committee chairman then tabulates the results from the committee members and announces the winners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.7%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 49.3%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 68.6%; rating input score 69; 48th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.4; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.7% of revenue deployed · 49.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $98K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 45 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.