Concho Valley Economic Development District Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752573427
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Angelo, TX, USA
Phone
3259449666
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$721,059
Expenses
$743,978
Assets
$884,255
Liabilities
$841,080

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Austin Stokes (Former CVCOG Executive Director)
  • Erin Hernandez (CVCOG Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Allen Amos (Chair)
  • Molly Criner (Board Member)
  • Charlie Bradley (Board Member)

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

Provide support to develop and monitor projects that will increase economic opportunities with the district. Provide technical assistance to member agencies regarding topics such as economic development business development and local government.

What it reported doing in 2024

Contract Elderly and Disabled transportation services in the Concho Valley region and monitor Transit District providing the services. The grant funds are received from the Texas Department of Transportation. The funds are used to pay transportation services for the Elderly and Disabled of the Concho Valley region. There is no administration revenue provided with this grant.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.2%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.7% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $744K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.