Concho Valley Workforce Development Board

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752725398
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Angelo, TX, US
Phone
325-653-2321
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,161,268
Expenses
$10,116,245
Assets
$1,150,509
Liabilities
$657,714

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Yolanda Sanchez (Executive Director)
  • Rynda Wortham (Deputy Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Yolanda Sanchez (Executive Director): $92,011 total reported compensation
  • Rynda Wortham (Deputy Executive Director): $67,309 total reported compensation
  • Robert D Bugge (CFO): $66,253 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Concho Valley Workforce Development Board connects job seekers with employment opportunities and provides employers with skilled talent, supporting economic growth in the Concho Valley.

What it reported doing in 2024

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act WIOA These programs help economically disadvantaged adults, youths, and dislocated employees to acquire necessary life and educational skills that will enable them to obtain, retain, and succeed in employment. Employment Services This program provides assistance to individuals seeking employment and businesses seeking qualified candidates to fill available job vacancies. Child Care Services These programs provide child care services to children of low-income families to allow their parents to work or pursue the education and training they need to obtain and retain gainful employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.5%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 13 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 96.5% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 32 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.