Dirrty Swamp Cookers of Austin Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453650598
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Lexington, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8322105192
- Rating
- 92
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $99,875
- Expenses
- $87,375
- Assets
- $14,000
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jonathan Herridge (CEO)
- Brett Georgulis (President)
People named in this filing
- Jonathan Herridge (CEO)
- Brett Georgulis (President)
- Debbie Stark (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dirrty Swamp Cookers focuses specifically on raising money to provide scholarship funds that we donate to a non-profit organization that awards the scholarships to send kids to college. This culminates in one big yearly event during BBQ Austin.
What it reported doing in 2024
Dirrty Swamp Cookers received sponsorship from various organizations specifically to participate in the BBQ Austin event with the primary goal of generating funds for scholarships to support childrens college education. All proceeds collected are allocated towards event costs or contributed to BBQ Austin a nonprofit entity. Throughout BBQ Austin the team distributed more than 5,000 complimentary meals to attendees and offered entertainment to over 10,000 individuals at no cost. Their efforts resulted in an impressive fundraising achievement with over $35,000 raised in donations attributed to the Dirrty Swamp Cookers participation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $120K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.