Marshall-harrison County Literacy Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752331075
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Marshall, TX, USA
Phone
9039350962
Rating
94
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,103
Expenses
$45,058
Assets
$72,506
Liabilities
$368

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ORLANDO VALLE (President)
  • PATTI BRADY (Vice President)
  • KAREN R BICKERDIKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • ORLANDO VALLE (President)
  • ASHLI DANSBY (Secretary)
  • KURL NATHANIEL (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To Promote Literacy and to Educate the Citizens of Harrison County to whom English is not their native language.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Marshall-Harrison County Literacy Council is a local organization that provides free, adult basic education, GED, English Language, computer, and citizenship programs for adults, to help eliminate and overcome barriers so that all of our community members have the opportunity to pursue and enjoy more fulfilled and productive lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

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: -54.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.